ELECTRICAL SAFETY REPORT - Home - EsaSafe · PDF fileIntroduction from The Electrical Safety Authority’s Chief Public Safety Officer The only document of its kind in Canada and one

SAFETY REPORTELECTRICAL

ONTARIO

13TH EDITION

2013

Introduction from the Chief Public Safety Officer ..................................................1

Executive Summary .......................................2

1.0 Purpose of this Report ............................6

1.1 Role of the Electrical Safety Authority .....7

1.2 Key Findings of the 12th Edition OESR...7

1.3 Case Studies ...........................................8

2.0 Electrical-Related Injuries and Fatalities ...9

2.1 Electrocutions and Electrical Burn Fatalities .........................................9 2.1 Summary of Statistics .....................12

2.2 Occupational Electrical-Related Fatalities and Injuries ...........................................13 2.2 Summary of Statistics .....................21

2.3 Non-Occupational Electrical-Related Fatalities and Injuries ............................22 2.3 Summary of Statistics .....................24

2.4 Electrical Injury and Emergency Department Visits in Ontario, 2003–2012 ............................................25 2.4 Summary of Statistics .....................28

2.5 Case Study: Electrical Worker ...............29

3.0 Utility-Related Equipment .....................31 3.0 Summary of Statistics .....................34

3.1 Case Study: Powerline Contact ............35

4.0 Overview of Fires in Ontario .................37 4.0 Summary of Statistics.....................40

4.1 Fires Resulting in Fatalities ...................41 4.1 Summary of Statistics .....................44

4.2 Fire Incidents with Electricity as the Fuel of the Ignition Source of the Fire ..........45 4.2 Summary of Statistics .....................47

4.3 Cooking Fires with Electricity as the Fuel of the Ignition Source of the Fire ..48 4.3 Summary of Statistics .....................51

4.4 Electrical Distribution Equipment with Electricity as the Fuel of the Ignition Source of the Fire .................................52 4.4 Summary of Statistics .....................56

4.5.1 Case Study: Fire Example # 1 ...............57

4.5.2 Case Study: Fire Example # 2 ...............59

5.0 Product Safety ......................................61 5.0 Summary of Statistics .....................63

5.1 Case Study: Lighting Fixture Fires ........64

Acknowledgements ....................................... 65

Methodology ................................................65

Fire Source Data ...........................................67

Bibliography ..................................................69

Glossary ........................................................71

Contents

ii 2013 Ontario Electrical Safety Report

Introduction from The Electrical Safety Authority’s Chief Public Safety OfficerThe only document of its kind in Canada and one of the few in the world, the Ontario Electrical Safety Report (OESR) consolidates multiple sources of data to provide an unbiased record of the state of electrical safety in a particular jurisdiction. The goal of the OESR is to present evidence that allows the safety community to make choices on where to direct resources that will prevent electrical-related fatalities, critical injuries and damage. Providing this annual statistical snapshot helps us direct our efforts where they are needed most.

Reporting data alone will not save lives, but it is a starting point for action and a yardstick to measure success. At ESA, we use the OESR in conjunction with our inspections, awareness campaigns, training initiatives and regulatory oversight to bring us closer to eliminating all electrical-related fatalities and critical injuries in Ontario. I am pleased to report that we are getting closer to realizing this vision. Over the past ten years there continues to be a decline in the rates of electrical-related fatalities and electrical injuries in Ontario.

While this overall downward trend is encouraging, unfortunately 2013 was a tragic year for 18 individuals and their family. There were nine electrical-related fatalities in 2013, which is a significant increase from two electrical-related fatalities in 2012. There were also nine fire fatalities due to electricity in 2013 compared to five in 2012. This reinforces to all of us in the safety system that there is still more work to be done.

Occupational electrical-related fatalities continue to outpace non-occupational deaths by a ratio of close to 3 to 1, up from 2 to 1 documented in last year’s OESR. Electrical distribution fires in houses and other buildings account for roughly 700 fires and result in two fatalities annually. Statistics like these are not just numbers—they are incidents that affect the lives of Ontarians. So while our focus is on these data, the work that ESA and our safety partners do each day has a real impact on the lives of Ontarians.

This report is only possible with the contributions and insight of many organizations. Specifically, I wish to thank the Ontario Ministry of Labour (MOL), the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB), the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI), the Office of the Fire Marshal and Emergency Management (OFMEM), and The Office of the Chief Coroner for Ontario.

I would also like to recognize the real people behind the statistics and on the front lines of electrical safety—electricians, utility line crews, firefighters and other emergency responders, and electrical inspectors to name a few. Their dedication and effort every day is improving the safety system for all of us.

Scott Saint Chief Public Safety Officer

2013 Ontario Electrical Safety Report 1

Overall Five-year Rolling Average Fatalities in Ontario

Fata

litie

s pe

r

Mill

ion

Pop

ulat

ion

2000 – 2004

2001 – 2005

2002 – 2006

2003 – 2007

2004 – 2008

2005 – 2009

2006 – 2010

2007 – 2011

2008 – 2012

2009 – 2013

Electrocutions and Burns 0.85 0.77 0.74 0.73 0.63 0.61 0.56 0.43 0.38 0.42**

Electrical Fire 1.05 0.98 0.84 0.92 0.93 0.84 0.80 0.69 0.64 0.60**

Total Electrical 1.90 1.75 1.58 1.65 1.56 1.45 1.36 1.12 1.02 1.02**

Conclusion: The five-year average fatality rate has decreased 35% over the last five years.

Source: ESA and Coroner’s records. ** Preliminary data subject to change.

Executive SummaryFor more than twelve years the Ontario Electrical Safety Report (OESR) has been produced by the Electrical Safety Authority (ESA) to provide a comprehensive assessment of electrical fatalities and incidents in Ontario. The report is used by ESA to better understand the dynamics of electrical safety. From these insights come strategies to improve electrical safety in the province.

The OESR provides a comprehensive assessment of electrical fatalities and incidents that occur in Ontario. Data presented in this report have been compiled from multiple sources, investigations, and root cause analyses. This report is broadly used by safety stakeholders and business operators to gain a better understanding of potential electrical risks, high risk areas, and to encourage the development of initiatives to improve the state of electrical safety in Ontario.

Over the past ten years, 2004 to 2013, there has been a decline in the rates of electrical-related fatalities, fire fatalities (where the ignition source was identified as electrical) and electrical injuries in Ontario. While progress is being made to reduce the number of incidents, the causes and contexts of the serious ones remain the same. Concerted efforts are needed for rates to continue to decrease.

Comparison of Electrical-related Fatalities to Fire Fatalities, per Million Population 2004 to 2013

0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

2 2013 Ontario Electrical Safety Report

Electrical Fatalities

In the past ten years, Ontario has reported 143 electrical fatalities. From 2004 to 2013, 68 people died by electrocution (non-intentional death caused by contact with electricity) or by the effects of burns, and 75 died as a result of fires where the ignition source was identified as electrical, though electricity may not have been the primary source of the fire. In comparison, for the ten-year period from 2003 to 2012, there were 145 electrical fatalities—71 electrocution and electrical burns fatalities and 74 fire deaths.

Electrical-Related Fatalities (Electrocutions and Electrical Burn Fatalities)

The rate of electrical-related fatalities (non-intentional death caused by contact with electricity) continues to decline:

• From 2004 to 2008, there were 40 electrical-related fatalities, a rate of 0.63 per million population.

• From 2009 to 2013, there were 28 electrical-related fatalities, a rate of 0.42 per million population; a rate decrease of 33%.

Utility-related electrocutions which have accounted for almost half (49%) of all electrical-related fatalities in the past ten years:

• From 2004 to 2008, 33% of all electrical-related fatalities in Ontario were from powerline contact (13/40).

• From 2009 to 2013, 39% were powerline related (11/28).

Occupational electrical-related fatalities continue to outnumber non-occupational deaths by a ratio of almost 3 to 1:

• From 2004 to 2008, 28 of the 40 (70%) electrical-related fatalities were occupational.

• From 2009 to 2013, 21 of the 28 (75%) electrical-related fatalities were occupational.

Electricians and apprentice electricians accounted for 24% of occupational electrical-related fatalities between 2004 and 2013 as they are critically injured on the job when working on energized electrical panels or Ballasts/347V lighting.

The non-occupational electrical-related fatalities rate has decreased compared to last year. The small number of incidents makes trending challenging; however, five-year rolling averages can assist in identifying patterns:

• The five-year average number of non-occupational electrical-related fatalities has decreased from 3.2 to 1.4 over the last ten years.

• The rate of electrical-related fatalities per million population has decreased from 0.27 to 0.11 over the same period. This is a decline of 59%.


Fire Fatalities and EventsThe number of electrical fires declined 38% between the years 2008-2012.

Cooking related fires continue to be the most common type of fire where electricity is the fuel of the ignition source; although the rates are declining:

• In 2003, there were 1,239 cooking fires.

• In 2012, there were 727 cooking fires. This is a 41% reduction.

Electrical distribution fires, as defined by the Office of the Fire Marshal and Emergency Management (OFMEM)1, are also declining:

• In 2003, there were 985 electrical distribution fires.

• In 2012, there were 443 electrical distribution fires. This is a 55% reduction.

Priority Issues

ESA uses the incident data in the OESR to identify those areas that present the greatest risk to Ontarians, to track changes in incident data, and to identify emerging trends.

Based on data collected over the past ten years, ESA has identified that over 70% of all electrical injuries and fatalities occur in four specific areas. These areas have been identified as priorities for reducing electrical fatalities, serious injuries, damage and loss in Ontario.

• Powerline contact accounted for 35% of all electrical-related fatalities in the past ten years.

• Electrical trade workers accounted for 31% of all occupational electrical-related fatalities between 2004 and 2013. There are at least four critical injuries to electricians on average each year. Safety incidents tend to be associated with unsafe work practices.

• Misuse of electrical products and unapproved or counterfeit products account for a significant number of safety incidents; more than 900 fires and an average of five fatalities each year. These fires are mainly caused by the misuse of stove-top equipment where unattended cooking has resulted in fire fatalities.

• Electrical infrastructure fires in buildings such as detached residential structures accounted for roughly 700 fires, and resulted in two fatalities, annually.

1 The OFMEM definition of “distribution equipment” is electrical wiring, devices or equipment, the primary function of which is to carry current from one location to another. Thus, wiring, extension cords, termination, electrical panels, cords on appliances, etc., are considered distribution equipment. This is different than Distribution Equipment as defined by Local Distribution Companies.


ESA Initiatives Based on insights from the OESR, ESA introduced a Harm Reduction Strategy in 2010 to focus on addressing those harms that represent the majority of incidents. ESA is working towards a goal of a 30% reduction in electrical fatalities between 2010 and 2015. More detail on ESA efforts can be found at www.esasafe.com.

ESA cannot reach its goal without the significant work and support of many partners and stakeholders within the electrical safety system. They range from those who generate and distribute electricity—such as electrical equipment manufacturers, standards organizations, safety organizations, installers of electrical equipment, educators, facility owners, injury response and treatment providers, government, researchers and injury prevention specialists, safety regulators and worker safety advocates—to those who are the end users of electricity.

Working together, we seek to reduce the number of electrical fatalities, injuries and fires with the ultimate vision of ‘Getting to Zero.’


OUR GOALAvoid preventable injuries of an electrical nature to reduce disability, deaths, lost time from work, and health care utilization.

WHO’S AT RISK?All 13.7 million Ontarians.

Purpose of this R

eport

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.0 Purpose of this Report

1.0 Purpose of this ReportThis is the thirteenth report on the state of electrical safety in the Province of Ontario. It is a compilation of statistics on electrical incidents: electrical-related fatalities; injuries of an electrical nature; and death, injuries, and damage caused by fire incidents identified by the Office of the Fire Marshal and Emergency Management of Ontario and local fire departments as having “electricity identified as the fuel source”.

The purpose of this report is to provide stakeholders within the broad electrical safety system with an update on the state of electrical safety in Ontario. Those stakeholders include:

• electrical utilities and those organizations that generate, transmit and distribute electricity;

• organizations that design, manufacture, distribute and supply electrical products;

• electrical contractors who install, repair and maintain electrical wiring installations and products in our homes, workplaces and public spaces;

• regulators and various levels of government that write policies and regulations to protect public safety;

• Canadian and international organizations which develop standards for electrical installation and products;

• academic and commercial organizations that focus on safety research and development;

• various organizations such as insurance companies that create policies that drive organization and consumer behaviour to reduce risk;

• health care providers, workplace and community-based safety organizations, education and training organizations that provide public communication, increase hazard-mitigation skills and awareness;

• consumers who purchase electrical products, and use and rely on electricity everyday in their home, workplaces, and public spaces;

• and more.

All of these organizations have a role in improving electrical safety in Ontario.

It is hoped that this report helps educate and inform members of the electrical safety system by identifying key electrical safety risks. This information can be used to develop and improve standards, identify areas for continued safety research, shape the development of workplace and community-based safety programs, and lead to improved training, education, and communications programs.


Role of The Electrical Safety Authority

1.0 Role of The Electrical Safety Authority

1.1 Role of The Electrical Safety AuthorityESA is an Administrative Authority acting on behalf of the Government of Ontario with specific responsibilities under Part VIII of the Electricity Act, 1998 and the Safety and Consumer Statutes Administration Act,1996. As part of its mandate, ESA is responsible for administering regulation in four key areas:

• Ontario Electrical Safety Code (Regulation 164/99); • Licensing of Electrical Contractors and Master Electricians (Regulation 570/05); • Distribution Safety (Regulation 22/04); and • Product Safety (Regulation 438/07).

ESA operates as a private, not-for-profit corporation. Funding derives from fees for safety oversight, safety services, and licensing of electrical contractors and master electricians. Activities include:

• ensuring compliance with regulations;• investigating fatalities, injuries and fire losses associated with electricity;• identifying and targeting leading causes of electrical risk;• promoting awareness, education and training on electrical safety;• engaging with stakeholders to improve safety.

1.2 Key Findings of the 12th Edition of the OESRThe following are key findings of the previous edition of this report (to access the full report, visit www.esasafe.com):

Between 2003 and 2012:

• There were 145 electrical-related fatalities consisting of £ 71 electrical-related fatalities; and£ 74 fatalities from fires with electricity identified as the ignition source.

• Work-related electrical deaths accounted for 48 (68%) of the 71 electrical-related fatalities.

• With the decline of workplace electrical-related fatalities to non-electrical trade workers, and some change in the yearly deaths of electricians in the ten-year period, the prevalence of electricians electrocuted on the job decreased from 13% between 2003 and 2007 to 8.0% between 2008 to 2012, as a percentage of all electrical-related fatalities.

• Fires, with electricity identified as the fuel of ignition, decreased by 42% between 2002 and 2011. Both cooking-equipment fires and electrical distribution equipment fires have declined.

In the five-year period 2008 to 2012:

• The rate of electrical-related fatalities per million population was 0.38. • The rate of death by fire where electricity was identified as one of the sources

of ignition was 0.64.• There was a decrease in powerline-related deaths. They accounted for 39% of all

electrical-related fatalities, compared to 41% in the previous five-year period.

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3


1.3 Case Studies

1.3 Case Studies

This report features several case studies of ESA root-cause investigations.

ESA conducts these investigations of select, serious incidents (fatalities, critical injuries and serious fires), in order to determine the underlying root causes. The learnings from these investigations help to prevent future incidents and fatalities.

ESA’s investigations go beyond compliance with any code, regulations or standard and are not limited to electrical safety dimensions, but examine occupational health and safety and the role of the integrated safety infrastructure.

Root-cause investigations assess both the events leading up to the incident and the surrounding conditions, and the events or conditions that went wrong and contributed to the incidents.

The case studies presented have been modified to protect the privacy of the individuals involved.

Case studies for fire-related incidents are generously provided by the Office of the Fire Marshal.

Case Studies

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3


1 Five-year Rolling Average Electrical-Related Fatality Rate in Ontario, 2004-2013

Fata

litie

s P

er M

illio

n P

opul

atio

n

2000 – 2004

2001 – 2005

2002 – 2006

2003 – 2007

2004 – 2008

2005 – 2009

2006 – 2010

2007 – 2011

2008 – 2012

2009 – 2013

Rate 0.85 0.77 0.74 0.73 0.63 0.61 0.56 0.43 0.38 0.42

Conclusion: 33% decrease in the five-year rolling average electrocution and electrical burn fatalities rate over the last five years.

Source: ESA and Coroner’s records

2.0 Electrical-Related Fatalities and Injuries

2.0 Electrical-Related Fatalities and Injuries

2.1 Electrocutions and Electrical Burn FatalitiesElectrocution happens when someone is exposed to a lethal amount of electrical energy.

To figure out how contact with an electrical source happens, characteristics of that source before the electrocution (pre-event) must be evaluated.

For death to occur, the human body must become part of an active electrical circuit with a current that’s capable of over stimulating the nervous system or causing damage to internal organs. The extent of injuries depends on the current’s magnitude (measured in Amps), the path the current takes through the body, and how long it flows through the body (event). The resulting damage to the human body and the emergency medical treatment ultimately determine the outcome of the energy exchange (post-event). (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 1991)



Electrical-Related Fatalities and Injuries

2.0

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0


3Five-year Rolling Average Powerline Electrocution Rate in Ontario, 2004-2013

Elec

troc

utio

ns

per

Mill

ion

Pop

ulat

ion

2000 – 2004

2001 – 2005

2002 – 2006

2003 – 2007

2004 – 2008

2005 – 2009

2006 – 2010

2007 – 2011

2008 – 2012

2009 – 2013

Rate 0.49 0.40 0.31 0.27 0.21 0.23 0.22 0.15 0.17 0.17

Conclusion: 19% decrease in the five-year rolling average rate; 2004-2008 to 2009-2013.


2 Number of Electrical-Related Fatalities in Ontario, 2004-2013

Num

ber

of F

atal

ities

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Number 8 9 12 5 6 7 6 4 2 9

Conclusion: 25% reduction in the number of electrical-related fatalities since 2006.


Electrocutions and Electrical Burn Fatalities

2.0

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5

2.1 Electrocutions and Electrical Burn Fatalities

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50


5 Five-year Rolling Average Occupational and Non Occupational Electrical-Related Fatality Rate in Ontario, 2004-2013

Fata

litie

s pe

r M

illio

n P

opul

atio

n

2000 – 2004

2001 – 2005

2002 – 2006

2003 – 2007

2004 – 2008

2005 – 2009

2006 – 2010

2007 – 2011

2008 – 2012

2009 – 2013

Non-Occupational 0.27 0.21 0.24 0.21 0.19 0.22 0.20 0.15 0.15 0.11

Occupational 1.10 1.04 0.91 0.96 0.81 0.71 0.65 0.50 0.41 0.36

Conclusion: 27% reduction in the five-year rolling average rate for occupational electrical-related fatalities; 2004-2008 to 2009-2013. 42% reduction in the in the five-year rolling average rate for non-occupational electrical-related fatalities; 2004-2008 to 2009-2013.


4 Percentage of Electrocution and Electrical Burn Fatalities by Facility Type in Ontario, 2004-2008 and 2009-2013

Cam

p-gr

ound

Com

mer

-ci

al

Farm

Indu

stri

al

Inst

itutio

n

Min

ing

Pub

lic

plac

e

Res

iden

-tia

l

Util

ity

2004 – 2008 0% 15% 5.0% 22% 8.0% 0% 15% 30% 5.0%

2009 – 2013 0% 21% 7.1% 14% 3.8% 0% 18% 29% 7.1%

Conclusion: Increase in percentage for utility, farms, public places, and commercial facilities.



2.0

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5


0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 30%25%

Utility

Residential

Public Place

Mining

Institution

Industrial

Farm

Commercial

Campground

Fata

litie

s pe

r M

illio

n La

bour

For

ce

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20




2.0

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5

2.1 Summary of Statistics• There were 68 electrical-related fatalities reported in Ontario in the

ten-year span between 2004 and 2013, down from 71 in the period between 2003 and 2012.

• The five-year rolling average electrical-related fatalities rate has decreased 33% over the last five years. When one compares five-year periods, there were 40 electrical-related fatalities in the 2004 to 2008 period and 28 in the 2009 to 2013 period. This is a difference of 12 electrical-related fatalities.

• When the 2004 to 2008 and 2009 to 2013 periods are compared, there has been a 19% decrease in the five-year rolling average rate for powerline electrocutions.

• The sectors that continue to show an increase in proportions are public places, farms, commercial facilities and utilities.

• Between 2004 to 2008 and 2009 to 2013, there was a 27% reduction in the five-year rolling average rate for occupational electrical-related fatalities, and a 42% reduction in the five-year rolling average rate for non-occupational electrical-related fatalities.


2.2 Occupational Electrical-Related Fatalities and Electrical Injuries

Occupational Electrical-R

elated Fatalities and Electrical Injuries

2.0

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5

2.2 Occupational Electrical-Related Fatalities and Electrical Injuries Occupational electrical-related fatalities are a significant and ongoing problem and a particular hazard to those who routinely work near electrical sources. Studies have shown that the highest proportion of electrocution deaths is among electricians and apprentices, power linepersons and those working in construction and manufacturing industries. As well, electrical-related fatalities are more common among workers who are younger than the average age of occupational deaths overall. Contact with overhead powerlines is reportedly by far the most frequent cause of fatal occupational electrocution injury (Taylor, 2002).

For those who survive electrical injury, the immediate consequences are usually obvious and often require extensive medical intervention. However, the long-term after effects might be more subtle, pervasive, and less well-defined, and are particularly difficult to diagnose, as the link between the injury and the symptoms can often go unrecognized by patients and their physicians. (Wesner and Hickie, 2013, Theman et. al, 2008).

Research has also examined the challenges of returning to work after electrical injury. Three distinct categories of challenges have been identified: 1) physical, cognitive, and psychosocial impairments and their effects on their work performance; 2) feelings of guilt, blame, and responsibility for the injury; and 3) having to return to the workplace or worksite where the injury took place. were identified. The most beneficial supports identified by the injured workers included: 1) support from family, friends, and coworkers; and 2) the receipt of rehabilitation services that specialize in electrical injury. The most common advice to others after electrical injuries included: 1) avoiding electrical injury; 2) feeling ready to return to work; 3) filing a Workplace Safety and Insurance Board injury/claims report; 4) proactively being a self-advocate; and 5) garnering the assistance of individuals who understand electrical injuries to advocate on their behalf. (Stergiou-Kita et. al, 2014).

Section 2.5 provides a case study that is representative of the risk factors associated with electrical-related fatality or electrical injury for electricians.


WHO’S AT RISK?All 7.4 million members of Ontario’s labour force.





2.0

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5

2 Occupational Safety Five-Year Average in Ontario

Five

-yea

r Av

erag

e N

umbe

r of

Ele

ctri

cal-

Rel

ated

Fa

talit

ies

and

Se

riou

s In

jury

2000 – 2004

2001 – 2005

2002 – 2006

2003 – 2007

2004 – 2008

2005 – 2009

2006 – 2010

2007 – 2011

2008 – 2012

2009 – 2013

Occupational Safety Overall 35 32 28 28 25 22 21 17 14 13

Electrical Trade 2.4 4.6 5 6.6 6.6 6.6 6 5.6 5.8 5.8

Conclusion: 48% decrease in the five-year rolling average; 2004-2008 to 2009 2013.


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1 Number of Occupational Electrical-Related Fatalities in Ontario, 2004-2013

Num

ber

of F

atal

ities

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Occupational 7 7 7 5 2 4 5 2 2 8

Conclusion: Highest number of occupational electrical-related fatalities since ten in 2001.






2.0

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5

4 Percentage of Occupational Electrical-Related Fatalities by Facility Type in Ontario, 2004-2008 and 2009-2013

Cam

p-gr

ound

Com

-m

erci

al

Farm

Indu

s-tr

ial

Inst

itu-

tion

Min

ing

Pub

lic

plac

e

Res

i-

dent

ial

Util

ity

2009 – 2013 0% 24% 10% 19% 4.5% 0% 19% 19% 4.5%

2004 – 2008 0% 21% 7.4% 32% 11% 0% 11% 14% 3.6%

Conclusion: Increase in percentage for utility farm, residential, public place, and commercial facilities.


0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

Campground

Commercial

Farm

Industrial

Institution

Mining

Public place

Residential

Utility

3Five-year Rolling Average Occupational Electrical-Related Fatality Rate in Ontario, 2004-2013

Fata

litie

s pe

r M

illio

n W

orkf

orce

2000 – 2004

2001 – 2005

2002 – 2006

2003 – 2007

2004 – 2008

2005 – 2009

2006 – 2010

2007 – 2011

2008 – 2012

2009 – 2013

Occupational Electrocutions 1.10 1.04 0.91 0.96 0.81 0.71 0.65 0.50 0.41 0.36

Conclusion: The five-year rolling average occupational electrocution rate has decreased 67% over the last ten years.


0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20


6Probable Cause of Occupational Electrical-Related Fatalities in Ontario, 2004-2013

Faulty Equipment

Human Error

Lack of Maintenance

Aging Equipment

Poor Design

Improper Procedure

Other/Unknown

Probable Cause of Fatalities 2.0% 4.1% 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 69% 18%

Conclusion: Close to 70% are possibly due to improper procedures.


5Percentage of Occupational Electrical-Related Fatalities by Type of Work in Ontario, 2004-2008 and 2009-2013

Con

-st

ruct

ion

Del

iver

y

Dis

as-

sem

blin

g

Farm

ing

Inst

alla

-tio

n

Mov

ing

Oth

er

Pro

duc-

tion

Rep

air/

m

aint

Util

ity

2009 – 2013 14% 0% 0% 0% 14% 0% 19% 0% 43% 10%

2004 – 2008 29% 0% 3.3% 7.1% 0% 3.3% 0% 3.3% 54% 0%

Conclusion: Increase in percentage for utility, other, installation, and delivery.





2.0

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5

Construction

Delivery

Disassembling

Farming

Installation

Moving

Other

Production

Repair/Maintenance

Utility

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Faulty Equipment

Human Error

Lack of Maintenance

Aging Equipment

Poor Design

Improper Procedure

Other/Unknown

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%


7Number of Occupational Electrical-Related Fatalities by Occupation in Ontario, 2004-2013

Num

ber

of E

lect

rica

l-R

elat

ed F

atal

ities

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Apprentice Electrician 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

Electrician 1 2 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 2

Power Lineperson 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0

Total Electrical Trade 2 3 1 2 1 0 1 1 1 3

Other Trades 5 4 6 3 1 4 4 1 1 5

Occupational Electrocution 7 7 7 5 2 4 5 2 2 8

Conclusion: In the last ten years, 31% of occupational electrical-related fatalities were by electrical trades people.





2.0

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8


9 Number of Allowed WSIB Lost Time Electrical Injury Claims in Ontario by Sex, 2004-2013

Num

ber

of C

laim

s

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Female 43 44 36 31 31 20 25 17 17 14

Male 131 108 137 99 74 76 63 53 62 68

Conclusion: 76% of claims are made by males.

Source: Workplace Safety and Insurance Board

8 Percentage of Occupational Electrical-Related Fatalities by Occupation in Ontario, 2004-2008 and 2009-2013

Apprentice Electrician

ElectricianPower

LinepersonOther Trades

2004-2008 7.4% 21% 3.6% 68%

2009-2013 5.0% 14% 10% 71%

Conclusion: No change in electrocution percentage for all electrical trades people.





2.0

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Apprentice Electrician

Electrician

Power Lineperson

Other Trades

0

30

60

90

120

150


11 Number of Allowed WSIB Lost Time Electrical Injury Claims in Ontario by Top Ten Sources, 2004-2013

Num

ber

of C

laim

s

Mec

hani

cal t

ool

and

elec

tric

par

ts

Hea

ting,

coo

ling

and

clea

ning

m

achi

nery

Mis

cella

neou

s m

achi

nery

(inc

ludi

ng

audi

o, v

ideo

)

Met

al w

oodw

orki

ng

and

plas

tic, r

ubbe

r,

conc

rete

and

oth

er

proc

essi

ng

Fire

, flam

e an

d sm

oke

Han

d to

ols,

po

wer

ed

Furn

iture

and

fix

ture

s

Spec

ial p

roce

ss

mac

hine

ry

(incl

udin

g fo

od s

licer

)

Mac

hine

ry, u

n-sp

ecifi

ed, N

EC

Stea

m, v

apou

r,

liqui

ds

Tota

l

Number of Allowed Lost Time Claims

549 107 47 44 43 38 31 29 27 23 1149

Conclusion: 48% of claims are sourced to machine tool and electrical parts.





2.0

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

10 Number of Allowed WSIB Lost Time Electrical Injury Claims in Ontario by Sector, 2004-2013

Num

ber

of C

laim

s

Serv

ices

Con

stru

ctio

n

Man

ufac

turi

ng

Gov

ernm

ent/

Mun

icip

aliti

es

Oth

er In

dust

ry

Sect

ors

Hea

lth

Car

e

Elec

tric

al

Tran

spor

tatio

n

Auto

mot

ive

Che

mic

al/

Pro

cess

Food

Number of Allowed Lost Time Claims

278 239 193 115 64 60 47 46 43 36 28

Conclusion: 24%, 21%, and 17% of claims occur in the services, construction, and manufacturing sector, respectively.


0

50

100

150

200

250

300


12 Number and Percent of Allowed WSIB Lost Time Electrical Injury Claims in Ontario by Nature of Injury, 2004-2013

Per

cent

Cla

ims

2004 – 2008 2009 – 2013 2004 – 2013

Burns (electrical) 313 165 478

Electrocutions, electric shocks

421 250 671

Conclusion: Claims for electric shock represented 58% of claims over the last ten years.





2.0

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5

Bird Triangle of Electrical Injury, Critical Injury and Fatality 2004 to 2013

5 Critical Injuries

1 Death

18 Non-critical Injuries

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%





2.0

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5

• Comparing two five-year periods, the occupational electrocution rate dropped from 0.81 in 2004 to 2008, to 0.41 in 2009 to 2013. This was a 56% reduction.

• The five-year rolling occupational electrocution rate has decreased from 1.10 to 0.36 over the past ten years. This was a 67% decrease.

• Over the past ten years, occupational electrical-related fatalities occurred most frequently in residential facilities, public places, and commercial facilities.

• Over the five-year periods 2004 to 2008, and 2009 to 2013, the percentage of occupational electrical-related fatalities for utility farm, residential, public place,and commercial facilities has increased.

• Close to 70% of the probable causes of occupational electrical-related fatalities were because of improper procedure.

• In the 2004 to 2013 period, electrical tradespeople accounted for 31% of all electrical-related fatalities in the workplace. This percentage is higher than the 2003 to 2012 period.

• When reviewing the data by sectors (as classified by the WSIB), the service sector has the most electrical injuries with construction and manufacturing as the second and third most common. 62% of claims occur in these three sectors.

• Machine tool and electric parts are the most common source of injury.

• Statistics from the WSIB confirm the danger of electricity. Electrical burns represent 42% of electrical injury claims while electrocutions/electric shock comprise the remaining 48%.

2.2 Summary of StatisticsIn the 2004 to 2013 period, there was a total of 49 occupational electrical-related fatalities (an average of 4.9 electrical-related fatalities per year) compared to 48 electrical-related fatalities from 2003 to 2012 (an average of 4.8 electrical-related fatalities per year).

With the exception of 2008, occupational electrical-related fatalities outnumbered non-occupational electrical-related fatalities. Since 2012, there has been a 400% increase in the number of occupational electrical-related fatalities.

Statistics Directly Related to Harm Reduction Priorities — Worker Safety

Five-year Rolling Averages ComparedNumber of worker-related electrical fatalities and critical injuries—based on data reported by the Ministry of Labour, incidents investigated by ESA, confirmed with the Coroner’s office report.

48% decrease in the five-year rolling average; 2004-2008 to 2009-2013.


1Number of Non-Occupational Electrical-Related Fatalities in Ontario, 2004 to 2013

Num

ber

of E

lect

rica

l-R

elat

ed F

atal

ities

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Non-Occupational 1 2 5 0 4 3 1 2 0 1

Conclusion: 80% reduction in non-occupational electrical-related fatalities since 2006


2.3 Non-Occupational Electrical-Related Fatalities and Injuries

Non-O

ccupational Electrical-Related Fatalities and Injuries

2.0

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5



2.3 Non-Occupational Electrical-Related Fatalities and InjuriesInjuries are a significant health problem. They are the leading cause of death for young people, and contribute substantially to the burden on the health care system. Many injuries are predictable and preventable.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6


3 Percentage of Non-Occupational Electrical-Related Fatalities by Facility Type in Ontario, 2004-2013

Per

cent

age

Campground Farm Public Place Residential Utility

Facility 0.0% 0.0% 22% 56% 22%

Conclusion: 56% of non-occupational electrical-related fatalities occur at residential-type facilities.



Non-O


2.0

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5

2Five-year Rolling Average Non-Occupational Electrical-Related Fatality Rate in Ontario, 2004-2013

Elec

tric

al-R

elat

ed F

atal

ities

pe

r M

illio

n P

opul

atio

n

2000 – 2004

2001 – 2005

2002 – 2006

2003 – 2007

2004 – 2008

2005 – 2009

2006 – 2010

2007 – 2011

2008 – 2012

2009 – 2013

Non-Occupational 0.27 0.21 0.24 0.21 0.19 0.22 0.20 0.15 0.15 0.11

Conclusion: 59% reduction in non-occupational electrocution five-year rolling average rate over last ten years.


0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%


4Percentage of Non-Occupational Electrical-Related Fatalities by Type of Activity in Ontario, 2004-2013

Per

cent

age

Con

stru

ctio

n

Inst

alla

tion

Land

scap

ing/

La

wn

Cut

ting

Not

Ava

ilabl

e

Oth

er

Rec

reat

ion

Rep

air/

M

aint

enan

ce

Thef

t

Vehi

cle

Type of Activity 5.6% 5.6% 5.6% 11.1% 5.6% 17% 17% 28% 5.6%

Conclusion: 62% of non-occupational electrical-related fatalities occur during recreation, theft, or repair/maintenance activities.



Non-O


2.0

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5

2.3 Summary of Statistics• Between 2004 and 2013, there were 19 non-occupational electrical-related

fatalities (an average of 1.9 electrical-related fatalities per year) compared to 23 electrical-related fatalities between 2003 and 2012 (an average of 2.3 electrical-related fatalities per year.) With the exception of 2008, non-occupational electrical-related fatalities outnumbered occupational electrical-related fatalities. Since 2006, the number of non-occupational electrical-related fatalities has reduced by 80%.

• Looking at the rate of non-occupational electrical-related fatalities per million population, the rolling five-year averages show a decline from 0.27 to 0.11. This is a 54% reduction over the last ten years.

• Public places, utility, and residential facilities are the most common locations for non-occupational electrical-related fatalities, with 100% of non-occupational electrical-related fatalities occurring at these facilities.

• 34% of non-occupational electrical-related fatalities happen during recreation and repair and maintenance activities.

0%

10%

5%

20%

15%

30%

25%


Number of Emergency Department Visits for Electrical Injury by Sex in Ontario, 2003-2012

Num

ber

of V

isits

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Female 498 597 619 580 538 597 532 582 314 364

Male 1196 1260 1546 1483 1254 1188 1142 1164 665 751

Total 1694 1857 2165 2063 1792 1785 1674 1746 979 1115

Conclusion: The number of emergency department visits for electrical injuries has increased compared to 2011.

Source: Ambulatory All Visit Main Table (NACRS, CIHI), Intellihealth, MOHLTC

1

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

2.4 Electrical Injury and Emergency Department Visits in Ontario

Electrical Injury and Emergency D

epartment Visits in O

ntario

2.0

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5

2.4 Electrical Injury and Emergency Department Visits in Ontario, 2003-2012How electricity causes injury varies depending on the magnitude of the current, how it’s transmitted (direct or indirect), where it enters and leaves the body, the path the current takes through the body and the surrounding environmental conditions (e.g. wet or dry environment) (Duff & McCaffrey 2001).

Exposure to electricity can result in a range of injuries. For example, it can lead to cardiovascular system injuries (e.g. rhythm disturbances), cutaneous injuries and burns, nervous system disruption, and respiratory arrest, as well as head injuries, and fractures and dislocations (caused by being ‘thrown’ or ‘knocked down’ from the severe muscle contractions induced by the current) (Duff & McCaffrey 2001; Koumbourlis 2002).




3 Location of Burns Associated with Electrical Injury in Ontario, 2003–2012

Num

ber

of V

isits

Bur

n of

Hea

d an

d N

eck

Bur

n of

Tru

nk

Bur

n of

Sh

ould

er a

nd

Upp

er L

imb,

Ex

cept

Wri

st

and

Han

d

Bur

n of

Wri

st

and

Han

d

Bur

n of

Hip

an

d Lo

wer

Li

mb,

Exc

ept

Ankl

e an

d Fo

ot

Bur

n of

Ank

le

and

Foot

Bur

n of

Eye

an

d Ad

nexa

Bur

n of

Oth

er

Inte

rnal

O

rgan

s

Total 133 47 156 1410 40 37 60 122

Conclusion: Of the cases where the principal diagnosis was a burn, the majority (1,410 or 64%) were of the wrist and hand.




ntario

2.0

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5


0

300

600

900

1500

1200

2 Number of Emergency Department Visits for Electrical Injury in Ontario by Age and Sex in Ontario, 2003–2012

00 – 04

05 – 09

10 – 14

15 – 19

20 – 24

25 – 29

30 – 34

35 – 39

40 – 44

45 – 49

50 – 54

55 – 59

60 – 64

65 – 69

70 – 74

75 – 79

80 – 84

85+

Female 343 207 231 537 856 708 630 426 388 337 242 134 73 27 38 17 17 13Male 435 220 276 749 592 1595 1463 1306 1333 1025 721 503 224 75 62 37 21 10Total 778 427 507 1286 1448 2303 2093 1732 1721 1362 963 637 297 102 100 54 38 23

Conclusion: 24% of all visits (3,751) were reported for people between the ages of 20 and 29. 19% of all visits (2,998) were reported for people under the age of 20.


0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Num

ber

of V

isits


5Emergency Department Visits Ontario for Electrical Injury 2003-2012 by Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS) levels

Num

ber

of V

isits

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Resuscitation/

Life Threatening 29 30 28 35 42 26 35 27 18 24Emergent/Potentially

Life-Threatening 422 556 688 676 562 617 596 641 393 368Urgent/

Potentially Serious 794 844 981 938 800 790 682 726 404 506Less-Urgent/ Semi-Urgent 375 368 430 370 340 327 338 321 149 197

Non-Urgent 74 59 38 44 48 25 23 19 10 17Total 1694 1857 2165 2063 1792 1785 1674 1734 974 1112

Conclusion: 79% of all visits (13,278) were classified on the Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS) at levels 1-3 (Resuscitation, Emergent, or Urgent).


4Primary Diagnosis of Emergency Department Visits for Electrical Injury in Ontario, 2003–2012

Num

ber

of V

isits

Effects of Electric Current (T75.4)

Effects of lightning (T75.0)

Burns (T20-T31)

Other diagnoses

Total 12718 708 2171 1223

Conclusion: 76% of all cases had a principal diagnosis of effects of electric current, and an additional 13% of cases had a principal diagnosis of burns.





ntario

2.0

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5

0

4000

2000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500


6 Place Where Electrical Injury Occurred in Ontario, 2003-2012N

umbe

r of

Ev

ents

Farm

Hom

e

Indu

stri

al a

nd

Con

stru

ctio

n Ar

ea

Res

iden

tial

Inst

itutio

n

Scho

ol, O

ther

In

stitu

tion

and

P

ublic

Are

a

Spor

ts a

nd

Athl

etic

s Ar

ea

Stre

et a

nd

Hig

hway

Trad

e an

d

Serv

ice

area

Oth

er

Spec

ified

Pla

ce

of O

ccur

renc

e

Uns

peci

fied

Pla

ce

of O

ccur

renc

e

Total 69 1878 1485 40 357 43 63 1230 835 4008

Conclusion: Electrical injuries were found to occur at the home (1,878 or 19%), at industrial and construction areas (1,485 or 15%), and trade and service areas (1,230 or 12%).




ntario

2.0

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5


2.4 Summary of Statistics• From 2003 to 2012, approximately 16,850 visits to Ontario hospitals’

Emergency Departments were because of an electrical injury. The number slightly increased between 2008 and 2012.

• Men visited Emergency Departments more than twice as often as women (11,649 or 72% vs. 5,221 or 28%).

• 24% of all visits (3,751) were by people between the ages of 20 and 29. And, 19% of all visits (2,998) were by people under 20 years old. This pattern is observed for both males and females.

• 79% of all Emergency Departments visits (13,278) were classified as Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS) levels 1-3 (Resuscitation, Emergent, and Urgent).

• In 72% of all cases, the principal diagnosis was the effects of electric current and in 4% of cases the principal diagnosis was effects of lightning. Burns were the principal diagnosis in an additional 13% of cases.

• In cases where a place of occurrence code was provided, the most common was in the home (19%), followed by industrial and construction locations (15%), and trade and service areas (12%).

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000


Case Study

2.0

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5

2.5 Case Study

2.5 Case Study: Electrical WorkerA new-hire electrician was replacing cooling fans in a capacitor bank at a manufacturing plant. To perform this task, a supervisor de-energized the load side of the circuit, leaving the line side energized. While performing the work, a fan the worker was removing fell and came into contact with the still-energized equipment resulting in an arc flash event that caused severe burns to the electrician’s face.

This job required replacing malfunctioning cooling fans (Figure 1) in a capacitor bank that controlled lighting in the plant. A contractor performing other work noticed that the fans were not working and informed the supervisor. The supervisor then assigned the work to a seasoned plant electrician with the new-hire electrician shadowing them. The new-hire electrician had been with the company for less than a week.

Using the disconnect switch feeding the equipment in the capacitor bank, the supervisor de-energized the load side of the circuit; this left the line side energized (see Figure 2).

Using a multimeter, the veteran electrician then tested for power below the switch and found no voltage. The supervisor and electrician then left to attend to other matters, leaving the new-hire electrician to remove the fan. The new-hire electrician removed two fans without incident. However, while removing the third fan, it fell into the line side of the circuit creating the arc flash event and injuring the worker. Lights went out in the plant and workers rushed to the electrician’s aid.

The electrician was taken to the hospital for evaluation of the sustained injuries.

Figure 1: Cooling fans at the top of the capacitor bank highlighted

Figure 2: Cabinet containing disconnect switch in the capacitor bank

Energizedline side

Fan fell in this area (cover was removed for the purpose of the investigation)

De-energizedload side


2.5 Case Study

Case Study

2.0

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5

2.5 Case Study: Electrical Worker (continued)Further investigation revealed the following:

• Miscommunication between the supervisor and workers — Investigation interviews revealed communication problems between the supervisor and the crew, Despite the potential of misunderstanding and miscommunication, this concern did not result in any additional action by the supervisor to ensure that the crew fully understood the work prior to starting. Through their statements, it was evident that the two electricians had some difficulty understanding some of the interview questions as well as questions involving electrical terminology. This included naming equipment in the capacitor bank and the purpose of individual components within the capacitor bank.

• The new-hire electrician was unauthorized to perform electrical work — The new-hire began performing work on locked out electrical equipment on the third day of work. According to the supervisor, the new-hire’s task was restricted to shadowing the veteran electrician. According to the two electricians, the new-hire was allowed to perform work on equipment locked out by his colleague. This is in contradiction to the company policy as the new-hire had not received the necessary lockout/tag out (LOTO) training, arc-rated clothes or personalized locks and tags that would allow him to work on electrical equipment.

• Hazard assessment failed to identify possible hazard caused by material falling into energized parts — The hazard assessment performed for this job included testing the load side of the disconnect switch. Although there was a cover limiting access to the energized line side equipment from the front of the equipment, there was no cover preventing tools or material from falling into the energized part from above.

• LOTO policy was not followed — The line side of the capacitor bank disconnect switch remained energized after the switch was locked out. Plant LOTO policy ‘Lockout Processes’ referenced company corporate policy ‘Hazardous Energy Control Program,’ which indicated that work was never to be performed on energized equipment. As a result, work occurred in contradiction to the company policy. According to the LOTO policy, every worker performing work on locked out equipment must have his/her personalized lock on the equipment. Since the new-hire had no lock yet, he was in violation of the LOTO policy by performing work on this electrical equipment.

Victim suffered severe burns

Hazard assessment failed to identify

possible hazard of material falling into

energized parts

LOTO policy was not followed

Victim was unauthorized

to perform electrical work

Miscommunication between the Supervisor

and workers


3.0 Utility-Related Equipment

Utility-R

elated Equipment

3.0

3.1

3.0 Utility-Related Equipment2

High voltage and distribution lines carry a lot of energy or power and, if not treated with respect, can be fatal. Electrical substations and transformers are fenced and covered to keep the public away from potential electrical shock hazards.



1 Number of Utility-Related Equipment Electrocutions in Ontario, 2004-2013

Num

ber

of E

lect

rocu

tions

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Total Electrical-Relat-ed Fatalities in Ontario 8 9 12 5 6 7 6 4 2 9

All Utility Equipment-Related Electrocutions 2 4 5 2 3 5 4 2 2 4

Powerline Electrocutions 2 3 5 1 2 4 2 1 2 2

Conclusion: Over the past ten years, utility-related equipment accounted for 49% of all electrical-related fatalities.


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

2 Utility-related equipment means electrical equipment and devices used by Local Utility Company (or privately owned company) to distribute electricity to facilities or buildings. Examples of such equipment are; overhead or underground powerline (including equipment on utility poles), substation, electrical vaults, high voltage switchgear or transformer.


3 Powerline Safety Five-Year Average

Five

-yea

r Av

erag

e N

umbe

r of

Ove

rhea

d P

ower

line

Con

tact

s

2004 – 2008 2005 – 2009 2006 – 2010 2007 – 2011 2008 – 2012 2009 – 2013

Powerline Safety Overall 160 169 156 145 130 126

Conclusion: Powerline Safety Five-Year Average has decreased 21% between 2004 to 2008 and 2009 to 2013.

Source: ESA records

2 Five-year Rolling Average Powerline Electrocution Rate in Ontario, 2004-2013

Elec

troc

utio

ns p

er M

illio

n P

opul

atio

n

2000 – 2004

2001 – 2005

2002 – 2006

2003 – 2007

2004 – 2008

2005 – 2009

2006 – 2010

2007 – 2011

2008 – 2012

2009 – 2013

Rate 0.49 0.40 0.31 0.27 0.21 0.23 0.22 0.15 0.17 0.17

Conclusion: Over the past ten years, the five-year rolling average for powerline electrocution rate has decreased by 65%.


0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Utility-R

elated Equipment

3.0

3.1


0

50

100

150

200


Number of Electrical Incidents by Event in Ontario, 2004-2013

Num

ber

of In

cide

nts

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Overhead Powerline Contact 101 173 169 208 134 132 112 118 148 110

Underground Powerline Contact 77 91 89 144 90 42 52 45 60 55

Vaults, Substations and Padmounts 0 14 1 12 11 6 3 3 0 9

Conclusion: From the highest levels in 2007, overhead powerline contacts are down 47% and underground powerline contacts are down 62%.

Source: ESA records

4

Number of Utility-Related Electrical Incidents by Outcome in Ontario, 2004-2013

Num

ber

of E

vent

s

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Critical Injury 7 9 12 5 3 7 4 2 0 5Fatality 2 5 5 1 3 3 3 2 2 5

Non-Critical Injury 1 12 7 29 12 17 7 16 19 10Property Damage 25 54 41 58 9 1 0 0 0 1

Unknown 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0

Conclusion: Most types of injuries have decreased over the last ten years.


5

Utility-R

elated Equipment

3.0

3.1


0

50

100

150

200

250

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


Utility-R

elated Equipment

3.0

3.1

3.0 Utility-Related Equipment: Summary

3.0 Summary of Statistics• From 2004 to 2013, there were 33 electrical-related fatalities associated

with utility-related equipment, which is 49% of the total electrical fatalities in Ontario in that period. This number has decreased by two deaths when compared to the previous ten-year period (2003 to 2012).

• Contact specifically with powerlines accounted for 24 of the electrical-related fatalities in the latest ten-year period which is the majority (72%) of utility-related equipment deaths.

• Over the past ten years, the five-year rolling average for powerline electrocution rate has decreased by 65%.

Statistics Directly Related to Harm Strategy Priority—Powerline Contact

Five-year Rolling Averages ComparedThe statistics below represent the number of worker and non-worker powerline related contact

incidents: Worker data reported by the MOL; Non-worker incidents based on data reported to ESA.

The Powerline Safety Five-Year Average has decreased by 21% between 2004 to 2008 and 2009 to 2013.

• Although still the number one and number two sources of electrical incidents by events, overhead powerline contacts have decreased by 47%, and underground powerline contacts have decreased by 62% since the highest numbers in 2007.

• Most types of injuries as a result of powerline and utility-related equipment have decreased over the last ten years.


Case Study

3.0

3.1

3.1 Case Study

3.1 Case Study: Powerline Contact

A landscaper was electrocuted after a metal pole used to string holiday lights contacted an overhead powerline

This incident involved the installation of holiday lights with a metal pole.

The landscaper was part of a two-person partnership hired to string decorative lights for residential properties during the holiday season. The workers had limited experienced with stringing lights on trees.

The incident involved hanging strings of lights on a nine-metre evergreen tree, which was located on the corner of the property of a detached home. When the crew assessed the job, they were concerned about making contact with a 120V insulated service conductor which passed along the north side of the tree. They also did not have a pole long enough to reach the top of the tree. As a result, the crew strung the lights in a vertical up and down sequence around the lower part of the tree below the service conductor to avoid making contact with the conductor.

The homeowner, however, was not satisfied with the way the tree was decorated—namely how the lights were laid out. In addition, there were blown bulbs on the tree. The homeowner requested the work be redone.

The crew returned to the site a few days later to redo the job. They brought a longer metal pole with an attachment that would allow for a higher reach. The crew started the work around 4 p.m. Landscaper #1 proceeded working on the east side of the tree using a ladder while Landscaper #2, the decedent, used the metal pole on the west side.

At some point during the job, Landscaper #1 heard the pole falling. When he checked on Landscaper #2, he found Landscaper #2 on his back with the pole lying on top of him. He was still conscious and told Landscaper #1 to get the pole off of him. Landscaper #1 did so and found Landscaper #2 to no longer be breathing. 911 was called while CPR was performed by Landscaper #1 and the homeowner. Unfortunately, Landscaper #2 succumbed to his injury. It was found later that the metallic hook on top of the metal pole had come into contact with the energized overhead powerline. Landscaper #2 provided the current path to ground, which resulted in his electrocution.

The investigation found that:

• The workers had experience stringing lights on houses, but limited experience on trees; no procedure was in place to perform this type of work; and they had no training on electrical safety.

• The powerline was estimated to be 8.8 metres above grade and 3.4 metres away from the tree.


Case Study

3.0

3.1

3.1 Case Study

3.1 Case Study: Powerline Contact (continued)

Causal Factors

• Causal Factor 1 – Limited electrical safety awareness There was a general lack of awareness of hazards and no proper hazard assessment was conducted prior to starting the job. Neither worker had electrical safety or powerline awareness training.

• Causal Factor 2 – Inexperience led workers to redo the work The crew had limited experience when it came to decorating a tree with lighting. Their inexperience led to an unsatisfied customer who wanted the work redone.

• Causal Factor 3 – No hazard assessment was conducted on the second visit Using a longer metal pole introduced a new hazard—namely the crew could now reach the powerline with the pole extended. The crew did not properly assess the hazard prior to starting to restring the lights. In addition, visibility against the sky at dusk in the fall may have played a factor.

• Causal Factor 4 – Conductive tool was used within proximity of the powerline The distance between the centre of the tree and the powerline was approximately 3.4 metres. When working with the conductive pole on the south side, the tool was within close proximity of the energized powerline and exposed the casualty to the hazard.

Contact point between overhead powerline

and the pole

Landscaper #1

Decedent

Landscaper #2 was

electrocuted

No hazard assessment was

performed on the second visit

Conductive tool was used within proximity of the

powerline

Inexperience led workers to redo the work

Limited electrical safety awareness

String pattern on first job

Tree

Plan View of the incident scene


1 Loss Fires in Ontario, 2008-2012

Num

ber

of L

oss

Fire

s

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Structure Loss 8098 8286 8037 7522 7497

Residential Loss 5837 5914 5834 5400 5441

All Loss 13151 12945 12849 11501 11295

Electricity is Identified as One of the

Ignition Sources2634 2220 2175 1965 1853

Stove-top Fires 818 747 750 627 584

Conclusion: 14% decrease in all loss fires. 7% decrease in structural-loss fires. 7% decrease in residential loss fires.

Source: Office of the Fire Marshal and Emergency Management Ontario Loss Fires 2008 to 2012

0

3000

6000

9000

12000

15000

4.0 Overview of Fires in Ontario

Overview

of Fires in Ontario

4.0 Overview of Fires in OntarioFire remains a significant threat to life and property in urban and rural areas. In 2002 (the latest available nationwide data in Canada), a total of 53,589 fires were reported in Canada. This number includes 304 fire deaths, 2,547 fire injuries, and billions of dollars in property losses. Structural fires, especially residential fires, remain a critical concern. The large number of electrical incidents and the associated dollar loss, as well as the number of “deliberate fires” and the associated dollar loss, are the two other areas of major concern (Asgary, Ghaffari, & Levy, 2010).



4.0

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5


2 Ignition Source for Structure Loss Fires in Ontario, 2008-2012

Per

cent

Appl

ianc

es

Arso

n

Can

dles

Cig

aret

tes

Coo

king

Elec

tric

al

Wir

ing

Hea

ting

and

Coo

ling

Mat

ches

or

Ligh

ters

Ligh

ting

(e

xclu

ding

C

andl

es)

Pro

cess

ing

Equi

pmen

t

Mis

cella

neou

s

Und

eter

min

ed

Oth

er O

pen

Fl

ame

Tool

s

Oth

er E

lect

rica

l or

Mec

hani

cal

Percent 4% 11% 2% 7% 17% 9% 9% 1% 2% 1% 10% 20% 4% 3%

Conclusion: Most common ignition sources: Cooking 17%, Arson 11%, Electrical wiring3 9%, Heating and cooling 9%, Cigarettes 7%, Appliances 4%.

Source: Office of the Fire Marshal and Emergency Management Ontario Loss Fires 2008-2012

4.0

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

Overview

of Fires in Ontario


0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

3 Five-year Average Number of Structure Loss Fires by Ignition Source in Ontario, 2003-2007 and 2008-2012

CookingHeating, Cooling

Electrical Wiring, Outlets, etc.

Cigarettes Appliances

2003 – 2007 1485 883 824 565 396

2008 – 2012 1379 686 706 539 346

Conclusion: 7% decrease for cooking. 22% decrease for heating, cooling. 14% decrease for electrical wiring. 13% decrease for appliances.


Cooking

Heating, Cooling

Electrical Wiring, Outlets, etc.

Cigarettes

Appliances

0 300 600 900 1200 1500

3 Electrical wiring represents all types of distribution equipment such as temporary and permanent wiring, cord, panel, fuses, or terminations.


4 Percentage of Structure Loss Fires Fuelled in Part by an Electrical Ignition Source in Ontario, 2008-2012

Per

cent

Appl

ianc

es

Coo

king

Eq

uipm

ent

Elec

tric

al

Dis

trib

utio

n Eq

uipm

ent

Expo

sure

Hea

ting

Eq

uipm

ent,

Chi

mne

y, e

tc.

Ligh

ting

Eq

uipm

ent

Mis

cella

neou

s

Ope

n Fl

ame

Tool

s, S

mok

ers’

Ar

ticle

s

Oth

er E

lect

rica

l, M

echa

nica

l

Pro

cess

ing

Equi

pmen

t

Und

eter

min

ed,

Unk

now

n, N

ot

Rep

orte

d

Percent 11% 42% 27% 0.1% 4.2% 5.5% 1.6% 0.8% 5.8% 1.0% 1.0%

Conclusion: Most common ignition sources: Cooking equipment 42%, Electrical distribution equipment 27%, Appliances 11%.


Overview

of Fires in Ontario

4.0

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5


0%

10%

20%

40%

30%

50%

5 Electrical Product Fires Five-Year Average

Five

-yea

r A

vera

ge

Num

ber

of E

lect

rica

l-R

elat

ed P

rodu

ct F

ires

1999 – 2003

2000 – 2004

2001 – 2005

2002 – 2006

2003 – 2007

2004 – 2008

2005 – 2009

2006 – 2010

2007 – 2011

2008 – 2012

Appliances 389 361 340 332 329 321 311 293 264 233

Cooking Equipment 1410 1298 1209 1200 1167 1145 1126 1089 996 910

Lighting Equipment 218 214 217 219 221 215 199 167 145 118

Other Electrical, Mechanical

170 169 181 185 193 189 179 162 143 124

Processing Equipment 53 47 45 42 43 40 37 30 25 19

Product Safety Overall 2203 2090 1992 1979 1952 1910 1853 1739 1574 1404

Conclusion: 28% decrease in the five-year rolling average; 2002-2006 to 2007-2011.


0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500


4.0 Summary of Statistics• Ontario reported 39,440 structural-loss fires (fires resulting in an injury,

fatality, or dollars lost) in the span between 2008 and 2012. This number is down from 40,854 in the period between 2007 to 2011.

• Residential loss fires account for 72% of the structural-loss fires in Ontario from 2008 to 2012. Stove-top fires account for about 9% of structural-loss fires.

• Since 2008 there has been a 14% decrease in all loss fires, a 7% decrease in structural-loss fires, and a 7% decrease in residential loss fires.

• For the period between 2008 and 2012, the Office of the Fire Marshal identified the following as the most common ignition sources for all structural-loss fires:

• Cooking 17%• Arson 11%• Electrical wiring 9%• Heating and cooling 9%• Cigarettes 7%• Appliances 4%

• Comparing the two periods (2003 to 2007 and 2008 to 2012) for the average number of structure loss fires per year by ignition source, there was a 7% decrease for cooking, 22% decrease for heating/cooling, 14% decrease for electrical wiring, and a 13% decrease for appliances.

• When structural-loss fires were restricted to those with electricity as the identified fuel source, but not necessarily the primary fuel energy source, the most common electrical-related products involved were:

• Cooking equipment 42%• Electrical distribution equipment 27%• Appliances 11%

Statistics Directly Related to Harm Reduction Priorities—Product SafetyIn electrical-related product fires—involving appliances, cooking equipment, lighting equipment,

other electrical and mechanical equipment and processing equipment—there was a 28% decrease

in the five-year rolling average (2003 to 2007 vs. 2008 to 2012) based on data reported to the Office

of the Fire Marshal and Emergency Management (where fuel energy was identified as electricity.)

4.0 Overview of Fires in Ontario: Summary

4.0

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

Overview

of Fires in Ontario


1 Fire Death Rate in Ontario: All Fatalities, 2003–2012

Dea

ths

per

M

illio

n P

opul

atio

n

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Fire Death Rate 8.9 7.9 6.9 6.4 7.2 7.7 7.4 6.1 6.7 5.2

Ontario Population in Millions 12.3 12.4 12.5 12.7 12.8 12.9 13.1 13.2 12.9 13.4

All Fire Fatalities 110 98 86 81 92 99 97 80 87 70

Conclusion: 42% decrease in death rate in all fatalities.

Source: The Office of the Fire Marshal investigates fatal fires in Ontario. Revised: October 2012

4.1 Fires Resulting in Fatalities

Fires Resulting in Fatalities

4.0

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.1 Fires Resulting in FatalitiesFires are a threat to public safety in terms of potential death, injury, and financial costs. In Canada in 2002, there were 53,589 fires, including 304 fire deaths, accounting for $1,489,012,263 in property losses. Most commonly (41%), these fires involved residential properties (Council of Canadian Fire Marshals, 2002).

The frequency of residential fires is concerning because they are the most common source of fire-related death (Miller, 2005). Specifically, in 2002, 82% of the 304 Canadians who died in a fire, died in a residential fire. (Council of Canadian Fire Marshals, 2002). Similarly, 80% of Americans who died in a fire in 2006, died in a residence (Karter, 2007). In the early 1990s, residential fires caused the deaths of between 4,000 to 5,000 Americans and injured an additional 20,000 each year (Baker and Adams, 1993).



0

6

8

10


3 Fire Death Rate in Ontario: Electricity as Ignition Source Fires, 2003-2012

Dea

ths

per

Mill

ion

Pop

ulat

ion

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Fire Death Rate Electricity as Fuel

Fires0.57 0.08 0.80 0.47 0.70 0.78 0.61 0.76 0.39 0.52


Fatalities in Electricity as Fuel Fires 7 1 10 6 9 10 8 10 5 7

Conclusion: 9% increase in death rate with electricity as ignition source.

Source: Office of the Fire Marshal and Emergency Management Ontario 2003-2012 Data

2 Fire Death Rate in Ontario: Structure Fires, 2003-2012D

eath

s pe

r M

illio

n P

opul

atio

n

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Fire Death Rate Structure Fires 8.1 6.9 6.2 6.1 6.6 6.8 6.3 5.4 6.4 4.7


Fatalities in Structure Fires 100 86 78 75 84 88 83 71 82 63

Conclusion: 42% decrease in death rate structure fires.

Source: The Office of the Fire Marshal investigates fatal fires in Ontario. Revised: October 2012

4.0

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5



0

2

4

6

8

10

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0



4.0

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5


4 Cause Classification for All Fire Fatalities and Fatalities Where Electricity is Fuel of Fire, 2003-2012

Undetermined Under Investigation IntentionalUnintentional/

PreventableFatalities in Electricity

as Fuel Fires 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 99.0%

All Fire Fatalities 30.0% 1.0% 17.0% 52.0%

Conclusion: 99% of fires identified with electricity as fuel are considered unintentional or preventable.


Undetermined

Under Investigation

Intentional

Unintentional/ Preventable

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

5 Percentage of Fatalities for Fires Fuelled at Least by Electricity by Ignition Source, 2003-2012

Per

cent

age

Cir

cuit

Wir

ing

—

Alu

min

um

Cir

cuit

Wir

ing

—

Cop

per

Clo

thes

Dry

er

Cor

d, C

able

for

App

lianc

es

Dee

p Fa

t Fry

er

Elec

tric

Bla

nket

, H

eatin

g P

ad

Exte

nsio

n C

ord,

Te

mpo

rary

Wir

e

Inca

ndes

cent

La

mp

— L

ight

Bul

b

Met

er

Oth

er C

ooki

ng It

ems

(e.g

. toa

ster

)

Oth

er E

lect

rica

l

Oth

er E

lect

rica

l D

istr

ibut

ion

Item

s

Oth

er H

eatin

g Eq

uipm

ent

Oth

er L

ight

ing

Equi

pmen

t

Spac

e H

eate

r —

P

orta

ble

Stov

e, R

ange

-top

B

urne

r

Tele

visi

on, R

adio

, St

ereo

, Tap

eTe

rmin

atio

ns (i

ncl.

rece

ptac

les,

switc

hes,

lig

hts)

— C

oppe

r

Wat

er H

eate

r

Ignition Source %

8.1% 14% 2.5% 5.3% 1.4% 0.0% 5.3% 2.5% 1.4% 5.4% 6.7% 5.4% 2.6% 1.4% 2.6% 30% 0.0% 1.4% 4.1%

Conclusion: Stove or range-top burners account for 30% of fire fatalities fuelled at least by electricity.


0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%


4.0

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5


4.1 Fires Resulting in Fatalities: Summary

4.1 Summary of Statistics• Ontario reported 897 total deaths due to fires4 between 2003 and 2012.

This number is down from 915 total deaths in the period between 2002 to 2011. In 2003 when there were 110 fire deaths, the population was 12.3 million, which results in a fire death rate of 8.9 per million population. In 2012 there were 70 fire deaths and the population was 13.4 million, which results in a fire death rate of 5.2 per million population. This is a 42% decrease in the death rate when comparing these two time periods.

• Ontario also reported 810 total deaths in structural-loss fires (fires resulting in an injury, fatality, or financial loss) between 2003 and 2012. This number is down from 826 total deaths in the period between 2002 to 2011. In 2003 there were 100 fire deaths in structures and the population was 12.3 million, which results in a fire death rate of 8.1 per million population. In 2012 there were 63 fire deaths in structures and the population was 13.4 million, which results in a fire death rate of 4.7 per million population. This represents a 42% decrease in death rate when comparing these two time periods.

• The Office of the Fire Marshal and Emergency Management data identifies 73 deaths in fires for which electricity was the fuel of ignition source between 2003 and 2012. Since 2003, the death rate in this type of fire has decreased from 0.57 deaths per million population to 0.52. This represents a decrease of 8.8% over this ten-year period.

• For fires where electricity as fuel was identified as the ignition source, 99% of the fires were considered unintentional or preventable. These types of fires have a greater percentage classified as preventable/unintentional fires than fires where electricity is not identified as the fuel of the ignition source.

• The number of fires and fatalities may change for the years 2011 and 2012 depending upon the conclusion of active investigations.

• Stove or range-top burners account for 30% of fire fatalities fuelled at least by electricity.

• Cigarettes were the source of 21% of fatal residential fires.

6 Residential Fatal Fires: Ignition Source, 2003-2012

Per

cent

age

Appl

ianc

es

Arso

n

Can

dle

Coo

king

Elec

tric

al

Wir

ing

Hea

ting

Ligh

ting

(e

xc. c

andl

es)

Mat

ches

or

Ligh

ters

Mis

cella

neou

s

Oth

er O

pen

Flam

e To

ols

Oth

er

Elec

tric

al /

Mec

hani

cal

Cig

aret

tes

Und

eter

min

ed

Ignition Source % 0% 13% 3% 10% 3% 2% 1% 5% 1% 2% 2% 21% 37%

Conclusion: Cigarettes are the source of 21% of fatal residential fires.


4 Fire deaths do not include fire deaths in vehicle collisions.44 2013 Ontario Electrical Safety Report

1 Summary of Fires with Electricity as the Fuel of the Ignition Source in Ontario, 2003-2012

Num

ber

of F

ires

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Number of Fires With Loss 2851 2497 2595 2640 2681 2557 2094 2024 1823 1698

Number of Fires With No Loss 476 476 560 484 441 403 203 177 145 146

Total Fires with Electricity as the Fuel 3327 2973 3155 3124 3122 2960 2297 2201 1968 1844

Conclusion: Over the past ten years: 40% decrease in loss fires. 45% decrease in total fires.


Fire Incidents with Electricity as the Fuel of the Ignition Source of the Fire

4.0

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.2 Fire Incidents with Electricity as the Fuel of the Ignition Source of the Fire

4.2 Fire Incidents with Electricity as the Fuel of the Ignition Source of the FireMore than 50,000 fires occurred in Canada in 2002, accounting for $1,489,012,263 in property losses. Nearly half of these fires (41 per cent) occurred in residential structures (Council of Canadian Fire Marshals, 2002). Previous research has found that the primary sources of residential fires are cooking, smoking cigarettes, heating equipment, or electrical malfunction (Ahrens, 2007; Diekman, Ballesteros, Berger, Caraballo, & Kegler, 2008; Duncanson, 2001; Hall, 2008; Leistikow, Martin, & Milano, 2000; Miller, 2005).



0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500


3 Source of Fires with Electricity as the Fuel of the Ignition Source in Ontario, 2003-2007, 2008-2012

AppliancesCooking

Equipment

Electrical Distribution Equipment

Heating Equipment,

Chimney, etc.

Lighting Equipment

Other

2003-2007 10% 37% 30% 4% 7% 11%

2008-2012 11% 42% 27% 4% 6% 10%

Conclusion: The distribution by source of fire has remained fairly constant over the 2003-2007 to 2008-2012 periods.


2 Fires with Electricity as the Fuel of the Ignition Source by Classification of Building or Structure, 2003-2012

AssemblyBusiness and

Personal Services

Care and Detention Industrial Mercantile Residential

2003-2007 811 457 359 1340 725 12009

2008-2012 490 298 211 781 441 9049

Conclusion: From 2003-2007 to 2008-2012: 41% decrease in fires for care and detention buildings. 42% decrease in fires in industrial buildings. 25% decrease in fires in residential buildings.


4.0

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5


4.2 Fire Incidents with Electricity as the Fuel of the Ignition Source of the Fire

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000

Assembly

Business and Personal Services

Care and Detention

Industrial

Mercantile

Residential

Other

Lighting Equipment

Heating Equipment, Chimney, etc.

Electrical Distribution Equipment

Cooking Equipment

Appliances

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 45%40%



4.0

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.2 Fire Incidents with Electricity as the Fuel of the Ignition Source of the Fire: Summary

4.2 Summary of Statistics• Ontario reported 23,460 loss fires and 3,511 no loss fires for a total

of 26,971 fires in which electricity was the fuel of the ignition source of the fire from 2003 to 2012. Over this same time frame, there was a 40% decrease in loss fires, and a 45% decrease in total fires.

• Examining the total fires by classification of building or structure between 2003 to 2007 and 2008 to 2012 finds:

• 41% decrease in fires for care and detention building• 42% decrease in fires in industrial buildings• 25% decrease in fires in residential buildings

• The distribution by source of fire has remained fairly constant over the 2003-2007 to 2008-2012 time frames. Cooking equipment, electrical distribution equipment, and appliances remain the top three sources.


1 Cooking Equipment Fires vs. Distribution Equipment Fires, 2003-2012

Num

ber

of F

ires

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


Electrical Distribution Equipment 985 897 993 865 908 859 604 507 500 443

Total Cooking Equip and Electrical Distri-

bution Equip Fires2224 1994 2101 2098 2066 1989 1606 1427 1272 1170


Conclusion: Since 2003, there has been a 41% decrease in cooking equipment fires and a 55% decrease in electrical distribution equipment fires.


4.0

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

Cooking Fires w

ith Electricity as the Fuel of the Ignition Source of the Fire

4.3 Cooking Fires with Electricity as the Fuel of the Ignition Source of the Fire



4.3 Cooking Fires with Electricity as the Fuel of the Ignition Source of the FireThe OFMEM fire loss reporting system identified cooking equipment as the leading ignition source associated with preventable home injuries. It accounted for an annual average of 184 injuries and six fatalities between 2003 and 2007. Cooking equipment was the second leading ignition source associated with preventable residential fire fatalities during this five-year period. These fires resulted in an average loss of $23.1 million annually (Reducing Residential Stovetop Fires In Ontario, OFM 2009).

Section 4.5.1 provides a case study that is representative of the risk factors associated with cooking fires.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500


3 Stove-top Fires vs. Cooking Fires by Possible Cause, 2003-2012

Children Playing

Design/ Construction/ Maintenance

Deficiency

IntentionalMechanical/

Electrical Failure

Misuse of Ignition Source/ Material First

Ignited

Other Undetermined

Stove-top Fires 25 80 39 134 6177 526 163Cooking Fires 43 265 57 550 7277 736 303

Conclusion: For stove-top and all cooking fires, the number one possible cause is misuse of ignition source/material.


2 Cooking Equipment Fires with Electricity as the Fuel by Ignition Source, 2003-2012

Num

ber

of F

ires

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Deep Fat Fryer 20 26 21 31 22 21 30 17 14 17Microwave 43 29 29 44 27 38 19 14 14 15

Open Fired Barbecue - Fixed or Portable 1 1 2 1 0 1 2 0 0 0

Other Cooking Items (e.g. toaster, kettle,

elec frying pan)134 114 123 110 128 113 47 60 48 41

Oven 149 110 135 143 145 127 104 71 64 65Range Hood 13 8 14 17 24 12 7 8 5 5

Stove, Range-top Burner 879 809 784 887 812 818 793 750 627 584

Total 1239 1097 1108 1233 1158 1130 1002 920 772 727

Conclusion: Stove range-top burners remain the most common ignition source for cooking fires of an electrical nature, but the number has decreased 34% over the past ten years.


Cooking Fires w


4.0

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5


0200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000

Children PlayingDesign/Construction/

Maintenance DeficiencyIntentional

Mechanical/ Electrical Failure

Misuse of Ignition Source/ Material First Ignited

Other Undetermined


5 Electrical Product Fires Five-Year Average

Five

-yea

r Av

erag

e

Num

ber

of E

lect

rica

l-

Rel

ated

Pro

duct

Fir

es

1999 – 2003

2000 – 2004

2001 – 2005

2002 – 2006

2003 – 2007

2004 – 2008

2005 – 2009

2006 – 2010

2007 – 2011

2008 – 2012

Appliances 389 361 340 332 329 321 311 293 264 233


Lighting Equipment 218 214 217 219 221 215 199 167 145 118Other Electrical,

Mechanical 170 169 181 185 193 189 179 162 143 124

Processing Equipment 53 47 45 42 43 40 37 30 25 19

Product Safety Overall 2203 2090 1992 1979 1952 1910 1853 1739 1574 1404

Conclusion: 28% decrease in the five-year rolling average; 2003-2007 to 2008-2012.


4 Stove-Top Fires: 2003-2007 and 2008-2012

Num

ber

of F

ires

2003 – 2007 2008 – 2012

Stove-top Fires 4171 3572

Conclusion: The number of stove-top fires has decreased 14% from 2003-2007 to 2008-2012.


4.0

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

Cooking Fires w



0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500


4.3 Summary of Statistics• In the ten-year period from 2003 to 2012, there were 10,386 fires identified

as cooking equipment fires. Since 2003 there has been a 41% decrease in this type of fire.

• Although the frequency of incidents has decreased 34% over the past ten years, stove and range-top burners remain the most common (75%) ignition source for cooking fires of an electrical nature.

• Between the two five-year periods there is a drop of 14% in total stove or range-top fires.

Cooking Fires w


4.0

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.3 Cooking Fires with Electricity as the Fuel of the Ignition Source of the Fire: Summary

Product Safety Five-Year AverageNumber of electrical-related product fires. A product fire is defined as one involving appliances or

cooking equipment or lighting equipment or other electrical, mechanical or processing equipment

as the ignition class source as classified by the Office of the Fire Marshal (OFMEM) data set.



4.0

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.4 Electrical Distribution Equipment with Electricity as the Fuel of the Ignition Source of the Fire



4.4 Electrical Distribution Equipment with Electricity as the Fuel of the Ignition Source of the FireIn 2007, an estimated 25,200 reported non-confined home structure fires in the United States involving electrical distribution or lighting equipment resulted in 270 deaths, 1,050 injuries, and $663 million in direct property damage.

Electrical distribution or lighting equipment accounted for 6% of home structure fires between 2003 and 2007, ranking fourth among major causes behind cooking equipment, heating equipment, and intentional. Electrical distribution or lighting equipment also accounted for 12% of associated deaths (ranking behind smoking materials, heating equipment, and cooking equipment) (Hall, 2010).

Section 4.5.2 provides a case study that is representative of the risk factors associated with electrical distribution fires.

Electrical Distribution Equipm

ent with Electricity as the Fuel of the Ignition Source of the Fire

1 Electrical Distribution Equipment Fires in Ontario, 2003-2012

Num

ber

of F

ires

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Electrical Distribution Equipment 985 897 993 865 908 859 604 507 500 443

Total Cooking Equipment & Electrical Distribution

Equipment Fires2224 1994 2101 2098 2066 1989 1606 1427 1272 1170


Conclusion: 55% decrease in number of distribution equipment fires over the past ten years.


0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500


2Distribution Equipment Fires by Ignition Source in Ontario, 2003-2012

Num

ber

of F

ires

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Circuit Wiring— Aluminum (Includes

Conductors)16 20 15 28 14 24 6 6 9 16

Circuit Wiring—Copper (Includes Conductors) 192 206 226 206 211 192 145 121 127 106

Cord, Cable for Appli-ance, Electrical Articles 139 115 114 114 121 126 93 79 70 74

Distribution Equipment (Includes Panel Boards,

Fuses, Circuits)167 150 155 142 127 112 101 85 85 73

Extension Cord, Temporary Wiring 96 78 102 78 87 83 52 58 47 39

Meter 14 11 13 11 12 16 7 9 1 6

Other Electrical Distribution Item 125 117 104 113 105 118 78 50 58 47

Service/ Utility Lines (Includes Power/ Hydro

Transmission Lines)80 63 100 71 66 69 46 35 38 31

Terminations—Aluminum (Including Receptacles,

Switches and Lights)26 16 16 11 23 12 8 3 3 5

Terminations—Copper (Including Receptacles,

Switches, Lights86 85 95 61 102 69 45 41 45 34

Transformer 44 36 53 30 40 38 23 20 17 12

Total 985 897 993 865 908 859 604 507 500 443

Conclusion: Circuit wiring - copper (including conductors) remains the top ignition source, but the numbers have decreased 45% over the last ten years.


4.0

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5


0

200

400

600

800

1000




3 Electrical Distribution Equipment Fire Possible Cause in Ontario, 2003-2012

Num

ber

of F

ires

Chi

ldre

n

Pla

ying

Des

ign/

C

onst

ruct

ion/

M

aint

enan

ce

Defi

cien

cy

Inte

ntio

nal

Mec

hani

cal/

El

ectr

ical

Fai

lure

Mis

use

of

Igni

tion

Sour

ce/

Mat

eria

l Fir

st

Igni

ted

Oth

er o

r

Und

eter

min

ed

Vehi

cle

Col

lisio

n

Possible Cause 15 992 13 5102 481 940 18

Conclusion: 60% of distribution equipment fires are possibly due to mechanical/electrical failure.


4.0

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5


0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000




4.0

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5


4 Distribution Equipment Fires Five-Year Average

Five

-Yea

r Av

erag

e N

umbe

r of

El

ectr

ical

Fir

es

2000 – 2004

2001 – 2005

2002 – 2006

2003 – 2007

2004 – 2008

2005 – 2009

2006 – 2010

2007 – 2011

2008 – 2012

Circuit Wiring— Aluminum, Copper

(includes conductors)205 206 208 206 208 203 194 190 184

Distribution Equipment (includes panel boards,

fuses, circuits)144 140 131 125 113 108 102 98 92

Cord, Cable for Appli-ance, Electrical Articles 109 111 109 109 107 107 108 105 103

Other Electrical Distribution Item 110 108 107 100 100 99 99 96 94

Terminations— Aluminum, Copper

(includes Receptacles, Switches, Lights)

107 102 91 92 87 82 75 74 62

Extension Cord, Temporary Wiring 74 80 82 80 78 76 72 69 63

Service/Utility Lines (includes Power/Hydro

Transmission lines50 54 51 47 44 42 41 42 43

Transformer 30 33 30 29 29 29 25 26 23

Aging Infrastructure Overall 830 836 809 788 766 747 716 699 665

Conclusion: There has been a 16% decrease in the five-year rolling average; 2003-2007 to 2008-2012.


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900




4.0

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.4 Electrical Distribution Equipment with Electricity as the Fuel of the Ignition Source of the Fire: Summary

4.4 Summary of Statistics• In the ten-year period from 2003 to 2012, there were 7,561 fires identified

as distribution equipment fires. There has been a 55% decrease in electrical distribution equipment fires over that period. The OFMEM defines distribution equipment as electrical wiring devices or equipment where the primary function is to carry current from one location to another. Thus, wiring, extension cords, termination, electrical panels, cords on appliances, etc., are considered distribution equipment.

• Circuit wiring—copper (including conductors) remains the main ignition source, but the numbers have decreased 45% over the last ten years.

• Mechanical/electrical failure accounts for 60% of the possible cause of fire. Only 6% is contributed to misuse. About 12% is contributed to an installation or maintenance deficiency.

Statistics Directly Related to Harm Reduction Priorities—Aging Infrastructure—Distribution Equipment FiresNumber of electrical wiring related fires such as copper and aluminum wiring, extension cord,

appliance cord, termination and electrical panel— electrical devices categorized by the Office

of the Fire Marshal as Distribution Equipment—based on data reported to the Office of the

Fire Marshal with fuel energy identified as electricity.





Case Study

4.0

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.5 Case Study

4.5.1 Case Study: Fire Example #1

A stove-top fire causing a double fatality and damage to the property.

A fire in the kitchen of a semi-detached two-level dwelling resulted in two fatalities and extensive damage to the residence. The fire was investigated by the local fire department, the police, and the Office of the Fire Marshal. It was determined that the fire was caused by a cooking pot being left on an energized burner of a stove in the kitchen, and the fatalities were associated with a lack of smoke alarms to warn the occupants of the fire.

A neighbour reported the fire and tried to alert the two occupants of the home. Firefighters found one of the occupants on the floor, inside the front door and the other near the top of the stairs on the main floor of the house. Emergency personnel were able to resuscitate the first occupant, but they later succumbed to their injuries. The second occupant was pronounced dead at the scene.

The living room, bathroom and kitchen were located on the main level. The kitchen was in the eastern portion of this level with a table, a fridge, a stove and cupboards. The basement contained a bedroom and closet area.

Some of the resulting damages in the house were:

• The drywall or plaster on the ceiling of the kitchen had collapsed from the heat or was consumed in the fire.

• The metal part of the fridge was warped from the heat and plastic or rubber liners were melted.

• At the entrance to the kitchen there was evidence of clean hot burning of the drywall on the ceiling, which became more apparent towards the patio door.

• The glass on the patio door was shattered and the aluminum frame was melted.• Base cupboard units near the stove were charred and blistered on the exterior,

but remained intact. • Upper cupboards above the stove were damaged enough to collapse downward

and/or consumed in the fire. Contents of these cupboards spilled out, melted or were consumed in the fire.

• Shallow V-patterns were formed with the lower point moving upwards and outwards from the stove.

• Surface charring was on the countertops adjacent to the stove, the nearest portions to the stove were completely consumed on both sides of the stove but more evident near the left front burner.

• The range hood showed signs of sustained high heat with clean burn where it was subjected to hotter and more sustained heat towards the left side.

• The door of the oven had collapsed outward. The oven was empty.• The top of the stove contained remnants of the cupboards, broken dishes that

were presumably stored in the cupboards above, and a portion of the filter from the range hood.


4.5.1 Case Study: Fire Example #1 (continued)• A large cooking pot was recovered on the floor in front of the stove. The handle

was burned off. The bottom of the pot had begun to delaminate due to extreme high heat, and it showed ring marks matching the size and configuration of the left front burner on the stove.

• The living room sustained heavy soot staining but no fire damage.• The basement level sustained no fire damage, only light soot staining

and water damage.

Investigation findings:

• The point of origin of the fire was determined to be the front left burner of the stove.• No sources of energy could be established except for the energized burner in the

area of origin of the fire.• The pot, which was found on the floor with markings on the bottom of it, indicated

that it had been on the energized burner at the time of the fire. Contents of the pot could not be determined, but due to the excessive demarcation burn marks inside the pot, it was determined those contents were the fuel to the fire.

Apartment fire and fatality

Pot left unattended

on energized burner

No smoke alarms

The investigation found that there is a need to be attentive when cooking, and to never leave the stove unattended. Furthermore, there should always be working smoke alarms in a residence.

4.0

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

Case Study


4.5.2 Case Study: Fire Example #2

Improper wiring to knob and tube circuit causes smoldering attic fire and damage to the property.

An incident is seldom the result of one single contributing factor. In most cases, some contributing factors have existed for months or years prior to the incident actually occurring. ESA also found that should any of these contributing factors be eliminated the incident would not have occurred. The case below is no exception.

The local fire department and the Electrical Safety Authority investigated a smoldering fire in the attic of a detached dwelling. The only viable ignition source was electrical; an improper connection between newer wiring to older knob and tube wiring. The fire began at this point of origin when a portable electric heater was plugged into a three-prong receptacle fed by this circuit.

Some of the resulting damages in the house were as follows:

• Fire patterns were limited to the attic area and bedroom ceiling immediately below the attic. The remainder of the house (interior and exterior) was void of fire patterns.

• The underside of the ceiling was generally void of fire patterns with the exception of minor smoke damage.

• The roof in the attic showed signs of smoke damage.• The walls of the attic showed soot deposits, which were significantly heavier closer

to the area of origin.• The wall immediately surrounding the openings where one white and one black

knob and tube wire ran showed severe charring. • The knob and tube wires were covered in debris/dust/soot.• Insulation on the black knob and tube wire was consumed at the point of origin;

midway through the wire in the attic with the insulation retracted on both sides of the conductor at that point. The conductor was still intact.

• The end of a white (neutral) Non-Metallic Dry (NMD) conductor was connected to the knob and tube white wire by means of wrapping the NMD wire to the knob and tube wire. The NMD wire was covered with debris/dust/soot.

Investigation findings:

• No junction boxes were used to house the wiring connections.• No connectors (marrettes) were used to provide a solid connection between

the wires. • The NMD neutral wire was improperly connected to the knob and tube neutral wire.

It was assumed that a black NMD wire had been wrapped around the black knob and tube wire in similar fashion but the black NMD wire may have been displaced during fire suppression as it could not be found. The point of origin of the fire was determined to be improper connection between the knob and tube black wire

Case Study

4.0

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5


4.5.2 Case Study: Fire Example #2 (continued)

Always ensure proper installation methods are followed when modifying or installing additional wiring. Improper wiring methods, such as improper termination and not protecting the wiring termination points from arcing, sparking and high resistive heating have been known to cause fires.

Attic fire resulting in

damage

Large load plugged into the circuit (heater)

Resistive heatingNo junction box used

Improper wiring method; wire

wrapping and no wire connectors

4.0

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

Case Study

and NMD black wire resulting in excessive heating and a high resistance fault. The resulting excessive heating burned some of the wire insulation and started a smoldering fire in the attic using the ceiling and surrounding wooden joists as fuel.

• No other viable or credible ignition sources were found. • The occupants of the home were present when someone smelled burning and,

upon realizing it was from the attic, turned off the circuit.


5.0 Product Safety

5.0 Product SafetyIn July 2007, Ontario Regulation 438/07 was passed. It strengthened ESA’s ability to manage electrical product safety in Ontario. The intent of the regulation was to develop a robust system for the management of identified electrical product safety concerns given the increasing prevalence of product incidents reported to ESA.

Since the coming into force of the provincial regulation, several changes occurred; most notably the coming into force of similar federal legislation, the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act (CCPSA) in 2011 which created concurrent product safety systems for consumer electrical products in Ontario, including mandatory reporting obligations. In anticipation of the federal legislation coming into effect; ESA and Health Canada entered into a formal information sharing Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).



Product Safety

5.0

5.1

Number of Electrical Product Incidents Reported to ESA, Ontario, 2005-2013

Num

ber

of R

epor

ts

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Number of Reports Submitted 170 234 274 475 679 817 1601 1220 564

Conclusion: 19% increase in number of reports since 2008.

Source: ESA Product Safety Reporting System

0

500

1000

1500

2000

1


Number of Electrical Safety Product Issues by Priority Level, Ontario 2013

Num

ber

of Is

sues

Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4Triaged by

Health Canada

Priority Level 33 261 98 48 124

Conclusion: 59% of safety issues triaged by ESA are priority level 2.


3

Electrical Product Incidents Reported to ESA by Report Category, Ontario 2013

Num

ber

of R

epor

ts

Voluntary Mandatory

Report Category 392 172

Conclusion: 70% of electrical product incident reports are voluntary.


2

5.0

5.1

Product Safety

5.0 Product Safety

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0

50

100

150

200

250

300


Percentage of Electrical Product Safety Investigation Types, Ontario 2013

Per

cent

age

of In

vest

igat

ions

CertifiedWith Suspected

Counterfeit LabelUnapproved

Investigation Type 57% 38% 5%

Conclusion: 57% of product safety investigations involved certified products.


4

5.0 Product Safety: Summary

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

5.0 Summary of Statistics• Since 2008, there has been a 19% increase in the number of number of

electrical product incidents reported to ESA. As Health Canada continues to implement their system, the number of reports submitted to ESA began to drop in 2012. This systemic change can account for much of the drop in reported incidents rather than inferring that the number of actual incidents dropped.

• 30% of the product safety investigations initiated by ESA in 2012 were as a result of the mandatory reporting requirements of Regulation 438/07.

• ESA assigns an investigation type and priority category to all ESA reported incidents in order to determine the proper response strategy. 59% of safety issues were classified as priority level 2 meaning based upon the results of the investigation, ESA may direct a range of corrective action plans to assure that no further serious electrical incidents or accidents occur.

• Product safety investigations are classified into three major categories: Unapproved (a product that does not meet labelling criteria but may not necessarily be unsafe), Certified (a product that was properly certified but reported to have a safety problem or perceived safety problem), and products with a suspected counterfeit label. In 2013, 57% of product safety investigations involved certified products.

Product Safety

5.0

5.1


5.0

5.1

Case Study

5.1 Case Study

5.1 Case Study: Tray DehydratorESA’s Product Safety group received a report from a consumer about an alleged fire with a dehydrator after about 14 minutes of use with a newly purchased unit. Very little information regarding the product was available to ESA as the consumer had returned the damaged unit to the supplier for a replacement.

Additional information was requested by ESA and it was determined from the information received that the dehydrator was approved by a certification body (CB), was manufactured abroad and imported by a Canadian distributor. The ESA database was used to confirm if there were similar incidents involving this dehydrator; none were found. Based on the severity of the incident, the investigation was assigned a risk assessment of priority 2.

The product was also being investigated by the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) as there had been some reported incidents of fire. ESA advised the distributor that if the CPSC decided to publish a public notice for the dehydrator, the ESA would follow suit. The distributor informed ESA that CPSC would be publishing a public recall notice. A joint release between CPSC, Health Canada and ESA was arranged and the recall notice was posted on all websites simultaneously on May 2, 2013.

ESA continued to monitor the recall process for a year after the notice was published by requesting monthly monitoring reports to be submitted.

ESA closed its file for this investigation on May 29, 2014 after advising the distributor to continue honouring the recall notice for the foreseeable future.


AcknowledgementsThis report would not be possible without the assistance of the many industry partners who share data. ESA acknowledges and thanks the Ontario Ministry of Labour (MOL) for providing information, notifying ESA of occupational electrical injuries and cooperating with ESA in the investigation of these incidents.

ESA thanks the Office of the Fire Marshal and Emergency Management (OFMEM) for its continuing support in providing information on fire-related electrical incidents, partnering with ESA on stove-top fire initiatives, and notifying ESA of electrical fire incidents.

ESA also thanks the following organizations for their support:

• The Coroner’s Office of Ontario for sharing coroner’s information on electrical-related fatalities and other deaths in Ontario;

• The Workers Safety Insurance Board of Ontario (WSIB) and the Association of Workers’ Compensation Boards of Canada (AWCBC) for providing occupational injury information; and

• The Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) for providing information on emergency department visits for electrical injury;

Development of this report was led by a team from ESA including Joel Moody, Francis Hardy, Said Ismail and Jenifer Robertson, with assistance from staff of ESA’s Utility Regulations, Product Safety and Communications departments.

MethodologyESA receives data from various resources to compile this report. These include the Coroner, Ministry of Labour (MOL), the Association of Workers’ Compensation Boards of Canada (AWCBC), the Office of the Fire Marshal (OFMEM), and the Workers Safety Insurance Board of Ontario (WSIB). ESA cross-references these data with the Coroner reports, the OFMEM’s report and ESA’s root-cause investigation data to ensure accuracy and understanding of the incidents. Data on non-serious incidents are taken as provided.

ESA also uses population data from Statistics Canada to determine electrocution and death by fire as rate per population and rate per labour population to determine occupational injury rates.

The 2004 to 2013 electrocution statistics are based on Ontario Coroner’s reports, ESA records, and the Ministry of Labour’s (MOL) reports. At the time of writing, the Coroner’s reports for 2012 and 2013 are only partially completed due to pending investigations and confirmations.

Data provided by the Office of the Chief Coroner takes precedence over other data in the event of discrepancies.

The electrocution and electrical burn fatality cases in the report are unintentional in nature. Suicides, deliberate attempt to injure, are all excluded; as well as death by lightning strike. Electrocution as a result of criminal activities such as theft of power, vandalism, pranks or as a result of a vehicle hitting a utility pole are counted as part of the statistics but are not included as part of the preventable


deaths. Death resulting from a fall but initiated by an electrical contact to a worker would not be recorded as an electrical-related fatality and therefore not counted as part of electrical injury data.

The report separates occupational from non-occupational (the general public) incidents for reason of stakeholder interest and to aid in identifying strategies to reduce the harm.

Case definition

Lost Time Injuries

Lost time injury data were provided by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board Enterprise Information Warehouse, data as at March 31, 2014 for all injury years. Lost Time Injuries (LTIs) refers to all allowed claims by workers who have lost wages as a result of a temporary or permanent impairment. Lost Time Injury counts include fatalities.

Allowed Lost Time Injuries for Electrical Burns and Electrical-related fatalities are based on the following CSA Z795-96 Nature of Injury Codes:

• 05200 ELECTRICAL BURNS

• 05201 FIRST-DEGREE ELECTRICAL BURNS

• 05202 SECOND-DEGREE ELECTRICAL BURNS

• 05203 THIRD-DEGREE ELECTRICAL BURNS

• 05290 ELECTRICAL BURNS, N.E.C.

• 09300 ELECTROCUTIONS, ELECTRIC SHOCKS

Please note that since the data is as of March 31, 2014 for all injury years (2004-2013), the earlier years are more mature than the more recent years.

Emergency Department Visits

Separations data from the National Ambulatory Care Reporting System were provided by the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI). Emergency Department separation data used in this report are classified according to the Canadian Modification of the 10th revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10-CA).

The inclusion criterion for the report was the presence of T75.4, T75.0, W85, W86, W87, or X33 codes indicating an electrical injury including being a victim of lightning, among any of the diagnosis or external cause codes assigned to a record.

Reliability of Data

The numbers and figures in this report are based on current information provided to ESA as of July 31, 2014.

Parts of this material are based on data and information provided by the Canadian Institute for Health Information. However, the analyses, conclusions, opinions and statements expressed herein are those of the author, and not necessarily those of the Canadian Institute for Health Information.

These numbers may change in subsequent reports due to additional information received after the publication of the report. These changes and explanations will be noted in future reports.


Fire Source DataThe OFMEM reports its data by calendar year. Data collection and verification for the year has a one year lag in reporting in the OESR. The OFMEM does not publish Ontario statistics until all fire departments have reported. The larger departments — Toronto and Hamilton generally do not finish their filing until September of the following year. At the time of writing, some OFMEM data for 2013 is not available and data for 2012 is presented instead.

ESA reports fire incidents based on data provided by the OFMEM to ESA on:

• all fires where the fuel of the ignition source was reported as electricity

• fire incidents investigated by OFMEM

In addition, ESA conducts its own investigation of fires when called by the local fire department to assist or when jointly investigating fire incidents with the OFMEM. ESA presents data that are consistent with the reporting convention of the OFMEM. Fires are reported by ignition source where the fuel of the ignition source was reported as electricity. It is worth noting that with the exception of fires with distribution equipment and fires identified as electricity as the ignition source by the fire departments or OFMEM, electricity was not the primary fuel associated with the fire. These situations are illustrated below.

In the OESR, these fires will be categorized into two types of fires. These are:

1. Fires caused by the ignition of combustibles (liquid and solids) around an electrical device, equipment, appliance or installation, but were not the direct result of a failure of electrical equipment or devices or electrical current or arc flash coming into contact with the object. When the primary fuel associated with the fire is not electricity (such as leaving a stove unattended with the oil catching fire), the OFMEM label these fires as cooking fires rather than electrical fires. In addition, the OFMEM does not recommend using numbers of fire deaths to identify trend and key issues.

Typically, these types of fire were the direct result of misuse of the equipment, device or appliance. Some examples of these types of fires are:

• grease fires on an electrical stove top as a result of cooking left unattended;

• clothing catching fire while cooking;

• clothes dryer catching fire caused by the appliance overheating due to improper cleaning of the lint cache; and

• combustible catching fire around heaters or electronics when they are placed too close to the heat source.


2. Fires caused by the ignition of combustibles around an electrical device, equipment, appliance or installation and were the direct result of the failure of the device, equipment or installation. In these cases, typical fires are caused by insulation surrounding electrical wiring failing and igniting a combustible in close proximity, or equipment or devices failing, causing them to overheat and later, start a fire. Insulation failure could be caused by natural aging, premature aging resulting from overloading, or by mechanical breakdown of the insulation. Fires related to wiring and wiring devices are classified by the OFMEM as distribution equipment. Please note that the definition of distribution equipment in the fire section is quite different than the distribution equipment in the powerline section of the report. Examples of these fires are:

• Carpet igniting caused by heat build-up of an extension cord placed under a carpet. Over time the insulation of the extension cord fails due to foot traffic on the cord which leads to mechanical breakdown of the insulation.

• Electrical wires poorly terminated and an installation performed without using any protective enclosure. Arcing occurs over time resulting in a fire of combustibles around the wires.

• Fire caused by a failure of a seized motor powered by electricity.

In the fire section of the OESR, ESA uses OFMEM’s method of categorizing types of ignition source class. By OFMEM’s definition, distribution equipment are electrical wiring, devices or equipment whose primary function is to carry electrical current from one location to another. Thus, wiring, extension cord, termination, electrical panel, cord on appliances are considered distribution equipment. Please note that distribution equipment defined by the OFMEM is not the same as Distribution Equipment defined by the Local Distribution Companies.


Bibliography Ahrens, M. (2007). Home Structure Fires. Report produced for the Fire Analysis and Research Division, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy: MA.

Asgary, A., Ghaffari, A., & Levy, J. (2010). Spatial and temporal analyses of structural fire incidents and their causes: A case of Toronto, Canada. Fire Safety Journal, 45(1), 44-57.

Baker, D.E. & Adams, P. (1993). Residential Fire Detection. University Extension, University of Missouri-Columbia: Columbia.

Berry JG Harrison JE 2006. Hospital separations due to injury and poisoning, Australia 2001–02. Injury Research and Statistics Series Number 26. (AIHW cat. no. INJCAT 78) Adelaide: AIHW.

Byard RW, Hanson KA, Gilbert JD, James RA, Nadeau J, Blackbourne B, & Krous HF 2003. Death due to electrocution in childhood and early adolescence. Journal of Paediatric Child Health 39: 46–48.

Celik A, Ergun O & Ozok G 2004. Pediatric electrical injuries: A review of 38 consecutive patients. Journal of Pediatric Surgery 39 (8):1233–7.

Council of Canadian Fire Marshals. (2002). Annual Report: Fire Losses in Canada. Council of Canadian Fire Marshals and Fire Commissioners: Ottawa.

Diekman, S.T., Ballesteros, M.F., Berger, L.R., Caraballo, R.S., & Kegler, S.R. (2008). Ecological level analysis of the relationship between smoking and residential-fire mortality. Injury Prevention, 14: 228-231.

Driscoll TR, Mitchell RJ, Hendrie AL, Healey SH, Mandryk JA, and Hull BP 2003. Unintentional fatal injuries arising from unpaid work at home. Injury Prevention 9:15–19.

Duff K & McCaffrey RJ 2001. Electrical injury and lightning injury: A review of their mechanisms and psychiatric, and neurological sequelae. Neuropsychology Review 11 (2):101–116.

Duncanson, M. (2001). Cooking, Alcohol and Unintentional Fatal Fires in New Zealand Homes 1991-1997. Produced for the New Zealand Fire Service Commission Research Report Number 16.

Fatality Assessment and Control Evaluation (FACE) Project Protocol [1991]. Morgantown, WV: Division of Safety Research, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

George E N, Schur K, Muller M, Mills S & Brown T L H 2005. Management of high voltage electrical injury in children. Burns 31 (4):439–44.

Hall, J.R. (2008). Home Fires Involving Cooking Equipment: Executive Summary. National Fire Protection Association, Fire Analysis and Research Division: Quincy, M.A.

Karter, M.J. (2007). Fire Loss in the United States during 2006. National Fire Protection Association, Fire Analysis and Research Division: Quincy, M.A.

Koumbourlis AC 2002. Electrical Injuries. Critical Care Medicine 30 (11 (Suppl.)):S424–30.


Leistikow, B.N., Martin, D.C., & Milano, C.E. (2000). Fire injuries, disasters, and costs from cigarettes and cigarette lights: A global overview. Preventive Medicine, 31: 91-99.

Miller, I. (2005). Human Behaviour Contributing to Unintentional Residential Fire Deaths 1997-2003. New Zealand Fire Service Commission Research Report Number 47.

Nguyen BH, MacKay M, Bailey B, & Klassen TP 2004. Epidemiology of electrical and lightning related deaths and injuries among Canadian children and youth. Injury Prevention 10: 122–124.

Ontario Fire Marshal. (2009). Reducing Residential Stovetop Fires In Ontario:Toronto.

Stergiou-Kita, M, Mansfield E, Bayley M, Cassidy JD, et al (2014). Returning to Work Following Electrical Injuries: Workers’ Perspectives and Advice to Others. J Burn Care Res 2014 Aug 5. doi: 10.1097/BCR.0000000000000041. [Epub ahead of print].

Taylor AJ, McGwin G Jr, Valent F, Rue LW 3rd 2002. Fatal occupational electrocutions in the United States. Injury Prevention 8 (4):306-12.

Theman K, Singerman J, Gomez M, Fish JS (2008). Return to work after low voltage electrical injury. J Burn Care Res;29(6):959-64.

Wesner, M. L., & Hickie, J. (2013). Long-term sequelae of electrical injury. Canadian family physician, 59(9), 935-939.


GlossaryCIHI – Canadian Institute of Health Information, a subsidiary of Health Canada, a not-for-profit organization responsible for collecting all health information across Canada.

Cost of Injury – Cost of injury as calculated by the WSIB in compensation, medical aid and pension.

CTAS – The Canadian Triage & Acuity Scale—a tool that enables Emergency Departments (ED) to triage patients and perform rapid patient assessment. The CTAS levels are designed such that level 1 represents the sickest patient and level 5 represents the least ill patient.

Distribution equipment (fire section) – Electrical equipment or device carrying electricity from one point to another, or electrical equipment or devices that connect or disconnect one conductor to another.

Electrical Apprentice – A worker who has yet to satisfy academic and field experience to become an electrician journeyperson.

Electrician – A worker whose occupation is identified as working primarily with low voltage electricity. Electricians in this report can be someone designated by the employer to perform low-voltage electrical work.

Electrical-Related Fatality – All deaths resulting from electrocutions and electrical burns.

Electrocution – An accidental death, caused by contact with electricity.

Fatality – An injury resulting in a death.

High Resistance Fault – Long-lived events in which the fault current is not high enough to trip the circuit overcurrent protection.

High Voltage – An electrical system with the load (voltage) equal or greater than 750V.

Human error – An inappropriate or undesired human decision or behaviour that reduces or has the potential to reduce the safety or system performance.

IHSA – Infrastructure Health & Safety Association —the developer and provider of prevention solutions for work environments involving high-risk activities such as working at heights or working with high

voltage electricity. IHSA was formed in January 2010 by amalgamating the Construction Safety Association of Ontario (CSAO), the Electrical & Utilities Safety Association of Ontario (E&USA), and Transportation Health and Safety Association of Ontario (THSAO).

Lineperson – A worker whose occupation is identified as someone working with high voltage electricity.

Low Voltage – An electrical system with the load (voltage) of less than 750V.

LTI – Lost Time Injury, a term defined by the WSIB for an occupational injury that resulted in a worker missing more than one shift of work.

MOL – Ministry of Labour of Ontario

NACRS – The National Ambulatory Care Reporting System contains data for hospital-based and community-based emergency and ambulatory care (for example, day surgery and outpatient clinics).

Non-occupational injuries – Injuries occurring in a location other than in the workplace.

NWISP – National Work Injuries and Statistics Program, an organization that serves as a repository of all occupational injuries in Canada.

Occupational Injury – An injury occurring in a workplace.

OFMEM – The Office of the Fire Marshal, a provincial organization responsible for the prevention of fires in Ontario.

Powerline – Outside/outdoor electrical cable or wire, used to distribute electrical energy.

Traumatic Injury – Injury as a result of a sudden or violent act.

Utility-related Equipment – Refers to electrical equipment and devices used by Local Distribution Companies or privately-owned companies to distribute electricity to the general public or to buildings owned by the private companies.

WSIB – Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, an organization responsible for compensation of workplace injuries.


This document was prepared by the Regulatory Division of the Electrical Safety Authority.

For queries and additional information, please contact Joel Moody at [email protected]

Documents

ELECTRICAL SAFETY REPORT - Home - EsaSafe · PDF fileIntroduction from The Electrical Safety Authority’s Chief Public Safety Officer The only document of its kind in Canada and one